Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Salvation From Greenie Insanity! Newman orders Bligh's husband to slash his green waste
1 view
Skip to first unread message
A@G@W@T@OTALCRAP
Mar 27, 2012, 9:09:58 PM3/27/12
to
Salvation From Greenie Insanity! Newman orders Bligh's husband to slash his
green waste
March, 28 2012
QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to begin
dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
carbon tax.
"We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
up," Mr Newman said.
Mr Newman denied his government was trying to manage out Mr Withers, an
assistant director-general who set up the Office of Climate Change when his
wife became premier in 2007.
The slashing of wasteful green schemes will not just be a victory for
reason, but a blow to Julia Gillard. Remember this madness - the Solar Dawn
solar project - I described last year?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/campbell-newman-orders-anna-blighs-husband-greg-withers-to-kill-green-schemes/story-fnbsqt8f-1226311864712
Warmest Regards
B O N Z O
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species
green waste
March, 28 2012
QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to begin
dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
carbon tax.
"We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
up," Mr Newman said.
Mr Newman denied his government was trying to manage out Mr Withers, an
assistant director-general who set up the Office of Climate Change when his
wife became premier in 2007.
The slashing of wasteful green schemes will not just be a victory for
reason, but a blow to Julia Gillard. Remember this madness - the Solar Dawn
solar project - I described last year?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/campbell-newman-orders-anna-blighs-husband-greg-withers-to-kill-green-schemes/story-fnbsqt8f-1226311864712
Warmest Regards
B O N Z O
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"A major problem has been the co-option of climate science by politics,
ambition, greed, and what seems to be a hereditary human need for a
righteous cause."
"What better cause than "saving" the planet, especially if one can get
ample, secure funding at the same time?"
William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton
University.
"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8ºK in
about 150 years, which, if true, means to me that the temperature has been
amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely
improved in this 'warming' period,".
Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever:
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"All it takes to find oneself called a 'denier' is to seek a sense of
proportion about environmental problems"
Mark Lynas, The God Species
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 27, 2012, 9:33:37 PM3/27/12
to
On 28/03/2012 12:09 PM, A@G@W@T@OTALCRAP wrote:
> Salvation From Greenie Insanity! Newman orders Bligh's husband to slash his
> green waste
>
> March, 28 2012
>
>
>
>
>
> QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to begin
> dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
> government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
> carbon tax.
>
>
>
> "We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
> up," Mr Newman said.
>
>
>
> Mr Newman denied his government was trying to manage out Mr Withers, an
> assistant director-general who set up the Office of Climate Change when his
> wife became premier in 2007.
>
>
>
> The slashing of wasteful green schemes will not just be a victory for
> reason, but a blow to Julia Gillard. Remember this madness - the Solar Dawn
> solar project - I described last year?
>
>
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/campbell-newman-orders-anna-blighs-husband-greg-withers-to-kill-green-schemes/story-fnbsqt8f-1226311864712
Excellent news. First Victoria, now Qld. Great to see democracy in
> Salvation From Greenie Insanity! Newman orders Bligh's husband to slash his
> green waste
>
> March, 28 2012
>
>
>
>
>
> QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to begin
> dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
> government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
> carbon tax.
>
>
>
> "We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
> up," Mr Newman said.
>
>
>
> Mr Newman denied his government was trying to manage out Mr Withers, an
> assistant director-general who set up the Office of Climate Change when his
> wife became premier in 2007.
>
>
>
> The slashing of wasteful green schemes will not just be a victory for
> reason, but a blow to Julia Gillard. Remember this madness - the Solar Dawn
> solar project - I described last year?
>
>
>
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/campbell-newman-orders-anna-blighs-husband-greg-withers-to-kill-green-schemes/story-fnbsqt8f-1226311864712
action! It's a breath of fresh air watching Australia gradually return
to sanity. Roll on federal election.
--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar
jg
Mar 27, 2012, 10:21:31 PM3/27/12
to
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 27, 2012, 10:28:01 PM3/27/12
to
plants.
jg
Mar 27, 2012, 11:08:45 PM3/27/12
to
Remembering of course that too much 'plant food' in an enclosed area is
considered 'stale' or foul.
Taking all the byproducts of combustion generally as pollution, the
libs' being all in favour of burning coal, oil etc would spell anything
but fresh air.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 28, 2012, 12:46:47 AM3/28/12
to
> Remembering of course that too much 'plant food' in an enclosed area is
> considered 'stale' or foul.
count, since that's not the atmosphere).
> Taking all the byproducts of combustion generally as pollution, the
> libs' being all in favour of burning coal, oil etc would spell anything
> but fresh air.
Australia? Or even some of the coal-fired power? Are you saying they are
about to reduce our electricity supply? And halt our transport? I guess
you are, since they haven't put up a business case for any alternatives.
Nuclear, with the Greens OK stamp?
troppo
Mar 28, 2012, 1:04:05 AM3/28/12
to
jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:xyucr.4950$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:
$605 million in greenie projects dumped so far. I reckon that's fresh
air.
news:xyucr.4950$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:
air.
A@G@W@T@OTALCRAP
Mar 28, 2012, 1:14:04 AM3/28/12
to
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 1:37:15 AM3/28/12
to
of freshening the air.
>> Taking all the byproducts of combustion generally as pollution, the
>> libs' being all in favour of burning coal, oil etc would spell anything
>> but fresh air.
> So do you suggest Labor would close down all the fossil fuel burning in
> Australia? Or even some of the coal-fired power? Are you saying they are
> about to reduce our electricity supply? And halt our transport? I guess
> you are, since they haven't put up a business case for any alternatives.
> Nuclear, with the Greens OK stamp?
>
CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
I haven't seen much reduction in energy use, although there is more
consciousness of wasted energy now.
In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did Turnbull.
But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
Gillard Lies. Labor Dies.
Mar 28, 2012, 5:02:59 AM3/28/12
to
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:09 someone claiming to be posting as %EMAIL posted:
> QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to
> begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
> government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
> carbon tax.
>
>
>
> "We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
> up," Mr Newman said.
Ah, sweet irony!
>
--
"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."
Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.
"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."
More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard!
http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
Labor Lies:
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" - Ju-Liar
Dullard
“Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that
somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their
advertising. We certainly reject that.” (Swan the Goose)
> QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to
> begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
> government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
> carbon tax.
>
>
>
> "We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
> up," Mr Newman said.
>
--
"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."
Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.
"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."
More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard!
http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv
Labor Lies:
"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" - Ju-Liar
Dullard
“Well certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that
somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their
advertising. We certainly reject that.” (Swan the Goose)
Bob F
Mar 28, 2012, 9:04:07 AM3/28/12
to
jg wrote:
> Of all the promises of liberal govts, fresh air is well down the list.
Of course, without liberal goverments, people would still be dying constantly
> Of all the promises of liberal govts, fresh air is well down the list.
from air polution.
Bob F
Mar 28, 2012, 9:05:15 AM3/28/12
to
jg wrote:
> Taking all the byproducts of combustion generally as pollution, the
> libs' being all in favour of burning coal, oil etc would spell
> anything but fresh air.
What planet DO you live on?
> Taking all the byproducts of combustion generally as pollution, the
> libs' being all in favour of burning coal, oil etc would spell
> anything but fresh air.
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 9:39:03 AM3/28/12
to
pollution.
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 10:02:13 AM3/28/12
to
mostly don't pretend to be guardians of the environment.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 28, 2012, 2:22:54 PM3/28/12
to
nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
> I haven't seen much reduction in energy use, although there is more
> consciousness of wasted energy now.
> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did Turnbull.
and Lab stuff; although the "There will be no carbon tax under a
government I lead." big lie has taken centre stage. Amazing that one tax
and one lie can cause the pending extinction of a major political pardy
nationwide. Still, nothing should surprise us from Labor.
> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
all pulling back on plant food scheme madness.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 28, 2012, 3:31:41 PM3/28/12
to
On 28/03/2012 8:02 PM, Gillard Lies. Labor Dies. wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:09 someone claiming to be posting as %EMAIL posted:
>
>
>
>> QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to
>> begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
>> government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
>> carbon tax.
>>
>>
>>
>> "We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
>> up," Mr Newman said.
>
> Ah, sweet irony!
Like making vandals clean up their own graffiti. Nice.
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:09 someone claiming to be posting as %EMAIL posted:
>
>
>
>> QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh's husband to
>> begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP
>> government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal
>> carbon tax.
>>
>>
>>
>> "We want him to unravel those programs 'cause he's the bloke who set them
>> up," Mr Newman said.
>
> Ah, sweet irony!
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 28, 2012, 3:48:46 PM3/28/12
to
significantly from Labor's. The fact that they are measured as opposed
to knee-jerk makes them appear different, but they address largely the
same issues. Greens would use the environment as a vehicle for their
totalitarian-style control, but in the end their policies would be so
extreme as to be unworkable (what were they after as a carbon tax?
$100+/tonne, as compared to China's $1.15, but only maybe?)
troppo
Mar 28, 2012, 6:39:28 PM3/28/12
to
jg <j...@nospam.com> wrote in
news:2qxcr.4956$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:
> On 28/03/2012 12:46 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 2:08 PM, jg wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2012 10:28 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2012 1:21 PM, jg wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/2012 9:33 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/03/2012 12:09 PM, A@G@W@T@OTALCRAP wrote:
>>>>>>> Salvation From Greenie Insanity! Newman orders Bligh's husband
>>>>>>> to slash his
>>>>>>> green waste
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> March, 28 2012
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
> I haven't seen much reduction in energy use, although there is more
> consciousness of wasted energy now.
>
> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did
> Turnbull.
>
> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
60% - 70% of the time my fresh air comes off the South Pacific Ocean.
Mostly north-easterlies. The concentration of co2 is frequently higher
than the "global average" because the SPO is a net emitter of co2. The
"carbon pipe" effect, recognised in the classical Carbon Cycle, but
usually omitted from deconstructed later versions of the CC. 97% of it is
natural.
news:2qxcr.4956$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com:
> On 28/03/2012 12:46 PM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 2:08 PM, jg wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2012 10:28 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2012 1:21 PM, jg wrote:
>>>>> On 28/03/2012 9:33 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/03/2012 12:09 PM, A@G@W@T@OTALCRAP wrote:
>>>>>>> Salvation From Greenie Insanity! Newman orders Bligh's husband
>>>>>>> to slash his
>>>>>>> green waste
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> March, 28 2012
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
The only thing that grows is the dollars ...
> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
> I haven't seen much reduction in energy use, although there is more
> consciousness of wasted energy now.
>
> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did
> Turnbull.
>
> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
Mostly north-easterlies. The concentration of co2 is frequently higher
than the "global average" because the SPO is a net emitter of co2. The
"carbon pipe" effect, recognised in the classical Carbon Cycle, but
usually omitted from deconstructed later versions of the CC. 97% of it is
natural.
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 6:57:37 PM3/28/12
to
On 29/03/2012 2:22 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
............
> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
>>
>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>
> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>
That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand
>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>
> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>
(with say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be
more efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
In the face of growing population, limiting increased use counts as
reduction, relatively.
Saving water saves the energy to pump it, energy star ratings, more
efficient cars, better public transport/less vehicle use, CFL lights,
solar panels, building insulation, more efficient air conditioning...
closing down coal stations isn't the only way to reduce CO2.
>> I haven't seen much reduction in energy use, although there is more
>> consciousness of wasted energy now.
> And does the "consciousness" reduce CO2? Via a carbon tax perhaps?
>
I should have said I haven't seen many cold showers or buildings in
darkness as a result of CO2 reductions so far.
>> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
>> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did Turnbull.
> Not disputing that, and I agree with some but not all of the Libs stuff
> and Lab stuff; although the "There will be no carbon tax under a
> government I lead." big lie has taken centre stage. Amazing that one tax
> and one lie can cause the pending extinction of a major political pardy
> nationwide. Still, nothing should surprise us from Labor.
>
>> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
>> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
>> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
> It looks like the rest of the world will be in that corner with them,
> all pulling back on plant food scheme madness.
>
nuclear requires a big outlay - where does the money come from?
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 7:25:51 PM3/28/12
to
On 29/03/2012 3:48 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
> On 29/03/2012 1:02 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 9:04 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> jg wrote:
>>>> Of all the promises of liberal govts, fresh air is well down the list.
>>>
>>> Of course, without liberal goverments, people would still be dying
>>> constantly
>>> from air polution.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Liberals think they have a lot of bases covered, but they shouldn't and
>> mostly don't pretend to be guardians of the environment.
>
> Their environmental policies (plant food taxes aside) don't differ
> significantly from Labor's. The fact that they are measured as opposed
> to knee-jerk makes them appear different, but they address largely the
> same issues. Greens would use the environment as a vehicle for their
> totalitarian-style control, but in the end their policies would be so
> extreme as to be unworkable (what were they after as a carbon tax?
> $100+/tonne, as compared to China's $1.15, but only maybe?)
>
>
I would say the greens use political control as a way to protect the
> On 29/03/2012 1:02 AM, jg wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 9:04 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> jg wrote:
>>>> Of all the promises of liberal govts, fresh air is well down the list.
>>>
>>> Of course, without liberal goverments, people would still be dying
>>> constantly
>>> from air polution.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Liberals think they have a lot of bases covered, but they shouldn't and
>> mostly don't pretend to be guardians of the environment.
>
> Their environmental policies (plant food taxes aside) don't differ
> significantly from Labor's. The fact that they are measured as opposed
> to knee-jerk makes them appear different, but they address largely the
> same issues. Greens would use the environment as a vehicle for their
> totalitarian-style control, but in the end their policies would be so
> extreme as to be unworkable (what were they after as a carbon tax?
> $100+/tonne, as compared to China's $1.15, but only maybe?)
>
>
environment. Few begin political careers then grab a cause, it's other
way around. If you wanted to rule the world, you'd join the lib or lab
party.
It's the libs who block legislation against coal seam gas. Libs who want
all out uranium mining & nuclear. WA libs gave us 'Roundup ready' crops,
a gas hub north of Broome in (proposed) national heritage country. WA
Libs building 5 new coal stations.
Argue what's environmental and what's not, but libs continually come
down on the side of what everyone else considers anti-environment.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 28, 2012, 7:37:05 PM3/28/12
to
On 29/03/2012 9:57 AM, jg wrote:
> On 29/03/2012 2:22 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
> ............
>>>
>>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>>
>> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
>> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>>
>
> That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand
> (with say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be
> more efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
I approve of a lot of alternatives at the appropriate scale. Domestic
> On 29/03/2012 2:22 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
> ............
>>>
>>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>>
>> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
>> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>>
>
> That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand
> (with say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be
> more efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
solar water heaters have been a favourite since I saw their prolific use
in Greece years ago.
> In the face of growing population, limiting increased use counts as
> reduction, relatively.
>
> Saving water saves the energy to pump it, energy star ratings, more
> efficient cars, better public transport/less vehicle use, CFL lights,
> solar panels, building insulation, more efficient air conditioning...
> closing down coal stations isn't the only way to reduce CO2.
venture with a non-PV solar pump I built at home, to raise bore water 4
m to header tanks. Keeps the garden and lawn watered automatically all
year round, with no evaporative loss and all excess drained straight
back into the water table. I'd use it for dunny flush too, if the missus
didn't object to the brownish colour of it.
>
>>> I haven't seen much reduction in energy use, although there is more
>>> consciousness of wasted energy now.
>> And does the "consciousness" reduce CO2? Via a carbon tax perhaps?
>>
>
> If you think any of the above reduces it, it does.
> I should have said I haven't seen many cold showers or buildings in
> darkness as a result of CO2 reductions so far.
swamping every reduction on the planet, and let's be consistent here, it
*is* a _global_ number we're talking about. I wonder if their
$1.15/tonne will ever be introduced?
>
>>> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
>>> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did Turnbull.
>> Not disputing that, and I agree with some but not all of the Libs stuff
>> and Lab stuff; although the "There will be no carbon tax under a
>> government I lead." big lie has taken centre stage. Amazing that one tax
>> and one lie can cause the pending extinction of a major political pardy
>> nationwide. Still, nothing should surprise us from Labor.
>>
>>> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
>>> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
>>> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
>> It looks like the rest of the world will be in that corner with them,
>> all pulling back on plant food scheme madness.
>>
>
> What country isn't trying to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels? Even
> nuclear requires a big outlay - where does the money come from?
that kind of thing. And it has to be carefully adjudged viable. Anybody
wanna by a windmill?
http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 8:14:45 PM3/28/12
to
would have been or what say China's would have been without efforts to
reduce it. And they are trying, much as it seems they don't bother.
>>
>>>> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
>>>> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did
>>>> Turnbull.
>>> Not disputing that, and I agree with some but not all of the Libs stuff
>>> and Lab stuff; although the "There will be no carbon tax under a
>>> government I lead." big lie has taken centre stage. Amazing that one tax
>>> and one lie can cause the pending extinction of a major political pardy
>>> nationwide. Still, nothing should surprise us from Labor.
>>>
>>>> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
>>>> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
>>>> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
>>> It looks like the rest of the world will be in that corner with them,
>>> all pulling back on plant food scheme madness.
>>>
>>
>> What country isn't trying to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels? Even
>> nuclear requires a big outlay - where does the money come from?
> It's all got to be properly planned though. Labor are incapable of doing
> that kind of thing. And it has to be carefully adjudged viable. Anybody
> wanna by a windmill?
> http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html
>
obviously need paying for, begs the question - what is the plan?
AG@W@CLAPTRAP
Mar 28, 2012, 8:26:37 PM3/28/12
to
"jg" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:lFMcr.4975$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 29/03/2012 2:22 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
> ............
>>>
>>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>>
>> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
>> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>>
>
> That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand (with
> say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be more
> efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
>
> In the face of growing population, limiting increased use counts as
> reduction, relatively.
>
> Saving water saves the energy to pump it, energy star ratings, more
> efficient cars, better public transport/less vehicle use, CFL lights,
> solar panels, building insulation, more efficient air conditioning...
> closing down coal stations isn't the only way to reduce CO2.
You left out a dictatorial socialist world govt which is what all this
>> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
> ............
>>>
>>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>>
>> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
>> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>>
>
> That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand (with
> say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be more
> efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
>
> In the face of growing population, limiting increased use counts as
> reduction, relatively.
>
> Saving water saves the energy to pump it, energy star ratings, more
> efficient cars, better public transport/less vehicle use, CFL lights,
> solar panels, building insulation, more efficient air conditioning...
> closing down coal stations isn't the only way to reduce CO2.
global warming hoax claptrap is a cover for!
jg
Mar 28, 2012, 8:55:52 PM3/28/12
to
On 29/03/2012 8:26 AM, AG@W@CLAPTRAP wrote:
> "jg"<j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:lFMcr.4975$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>> On 29/03/2012 2:22 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
>> ............
>>>>
>>>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>>>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>>>
>>> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
>>> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>>>
>>
>> That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand (with
>> say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be more
>> efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
>>
>> In the face of growing population, limiting increased use counts as
>> reduction, relatively.
>>
>> Saving water saves the energy to pump it, energy star ratings, more
>> efficient cars, better public transport/less vehicle use, CFL lights,
>> solar panels, building insulation, more efficient air conditioning...
>> closing down coal stations isn't the only way to reduce CO2.
>
>
>
> You left out a dictatorial socialist world govt which is what all this
> global warming hoax claptrap is a cover for!
>
>
That's because it has no place in what I am talking about, except that
> "jg"<j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:lFMcr.4975$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>> On 29/03/2012 2:22 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2012 4:37 PM, jg wrote:
>> ............
>>>>
>>>> Labor 'would do' what they are doing - trying to reduce the amount of
>>>> CO2 we produce and grow renewable energy.
>>>
>>> But how would they do this without shutting down coal-fired power, with
>>> nothing to replace it with? Burning gas BTW, also produces CO2.
>>>
>>
>> That's why I am surprised you hadn't thought of reducing gas demand (with
>> say solar hot water) as a way of reducing CO2. OTOH gas can be more
>> efficient than electricity for certain jobs.
>>
>> In the face of growing population, limiting increased use counts as
>> reduction, relatively.
>>
>> Saving water saves the energy to pump it, energy star ratings, more
>> efficient cars, better public transport/less vehicle use, CFL lights,
>> solar panels, building insulation, more efficient air conditioning...
>> closing down coal stations isn't the only way to reduce CO2.
>
>
>
> You left out a dictatorial socialist world govt which is what all this
> global warming hoax claptrap is a cover for!
>
>
people for environment are often also humanitarian types. By comparison
with environmental vandals at least.
AG@W@CLAPTRAP
Mar 28, 2012, 9:11:21 PM3/28/12
to
news:coOcr.4978$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Really?
Then you must be one of the "useful idiots" then.
Leftist Warmist Totalitarian Instinct Exposed Back To The Future With
Eugenics
Mar, 14 2012
I remember being attacked when I warned of the strong links between Nazism
and Germany's green groups in the 1930s.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16217
The totalitarian instinct, and the disregard for the individual, seemed only
too common to both ideologies.
Now, as the global warming faith develops, the links I warned off grow far
less tenuous.
Take the latest idea - to breed a race of super-greens.
Yes, we're back to eugenics again:
The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our
technologies to be more energy-efficient. So, some scholars are asking, what
if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper
to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of
biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic
engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less
resource-intensive children.
Of course, reassurances are given.
I mean, we're none of us brutes these days .. right?
The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy
and bioethics at New York University.... Neither Liao or his co-authors,
Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human
engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not
technocratic mandates.
But actually, that's false.
Liao makes clear that his proposal include modifying fetuses - a most
coercive form of human engineering:
Liao: ... Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and
nutrients. And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person's
ecological footprint....
You might try to do it through a technique called preimplantation genetic
diagnosis, which is already used in IVF settings in fertility clinics today.
In this scenario you'd be looking to select which embryos to implant based
on height.
Another way to affect height is to use a hormone treatment to trigger the
closing of the epiphyseal plate earlier than normal---this sometimes happens
by accident in vitamin overdose cases. In fact hormone treatments are
already used for height reduction in overly tall children. A final way you
could do this is by way of gene imprinting, by influencing the competition
between maternal and paternal genes, where there is a height disparity
between the mother and father.
The obvious question is asked:
Isn't it ethically problematic to allow parents to make these kinds of
irreversible choices for their children?
And that totalitarian instinct is then revealed - that casual sacrifice of
an individual to the great cause:
Liao: That's a really good question..... With selection you don't really
have the issue of irreversible choices because the embryo selected can't
complain that she could have been otherwise..l. In the case of modification,
that issue could certainly arise, but even then I think it's important to
step back and ask why we are looking at these solutions in the first place.
The reason we are even considering these solutions is to prevent climate
change, which is a really serious problem
Actually, a far bigger problem than climate change is this return to
eugenics - the modification of children on ideological grounds.
What next?
The "euthanasia" of people too ungreen to live?
Proposals for mass sterilisation?
Oops. We've had that already.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/13/climate-craziness-of-the-week-eugenics-is-making-a-comeback-with-climate-optimized-human-engineering/
Then you must be one of the "useful idiots" then.
Leftist Warmist Totalitarian Instinct Exposed Back To The Future With
Eugenics
Mar, 14 2012
I remember being attacked when I warned of the strong links between Nazism
and Germany's green groups in the 1930s.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16217
The totalitarian instinct, and the disregard for the individual, seemed only
too common to both ideologies.
Now, as the global warming faith develops, the links I warned off grow far
less tenuous.
Take the latest idea - to breed a race of super-greens.
Yes, we're back to eugenics again:
The threat of global climate change has prompted us to redesign many of our
technologies to be more energy-efficient. So, some scholars are asking, what
if we could engineer human beings to be more energy efficient? A new paper
to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment proposes a series of
biomedical modifications that could help humans, themselves, consume less.
For instance, the paper suggests that parents could make use of genetic
engineering or hormone therapy in order to birth smaller, less
resource-intensive children.
Of course, reassurances are given.
I mean, we're none of us brutes these days .. right?
The lead author of the paper, S. Matthew Liao, is a professor of philosophy
and bioethics at New York University.... Neither Liao or his co-authors,
Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford, approve of any coercive human
engineering; they favor modifications borne of individual choices, not
technocratic mandates.
But actually, that's false.
Liao makes clear that his proposal include modifying fetuses - a most
coercive form of human engineering:
Liao: ... Each kilogram of body mass requires a certain amount of food and
nutrients. And so size reduction could be one way to reduce a person's
ecological footprint....
You might try to do it through a technique called preimplantation genetic
diagnosis, which is already used in IVF settings in fertility clinics today.
In this scenario you'd be looking to select which embryos to implant based
on height.
Another way to affect height is to use a hormone treatment to trigger the
closing of the epiphyseal plate earlier than normal---this sometimes happens
by accident in vitamin overdose cases. In fact hormone treatments are
already used for height reduction in overly tall children. A final way you
could do this is by way of gene imprinting, by influencing the competition
between maternal and paternal genes, where there is a height disparity
between the mother and father.
The obvious question is asked:
Isn't it ethically problematic to allow parents to make these kinds of
irreversible choices for their children?
And that totalitarian instinct is then revealed - that casual sacrifice of
an individual to the great cause:
Liao: That's a really good question..... With selection you don't really
have the issue of irreversible choices because the embryo selected can't
complain that she could have been otherwise..l. In the case of modification,
that issue could certainly arise, but even then I think it's important to
step back and ask why we are looking at these solutions in the first place.
The reason we are even considering these solutions is to prevent climate
change, which is a really serious problem
Actually, a far bigger problem than climate change is this return to
eugenics - the modification of children on ideological grounds.
What next?
The "euthanasia" of people too ungreen to live?
Proposals for mass sterilisation?
Oops. We've had that already.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/13/climate-craziness-of-the-week-eugenics-is-making-a-comeback-with-climate-optimized-human-engineering/
Bob F
Mar 28, 2012, 11:35:34 PM3/28/12
to
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 29, 2012, 12:03:41 AM3/29/12
to
On 29/03/2012 10:25 AM, jg wrote:
> On 29/03/2012 3:48 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 29/03/2012 1:02 AM, jg wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2012 9:04 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> jg wrote:
>>>>> Of all the promises of liberal govts, fresh air is well down the list.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, without liberal goverments, people would still be dying
>>>> constantly
>>>> from air polution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Liberals think they have a lot of bases covered, but they shouldn't and
>>> mostly don't pretend to be guardians of the environment.
>>
>> Their environmental policies (plant food taxes aside) don't differ
>> significantly from Labor's. The fact that they are measured as opposed
>> to knee-jerk makes them appear different, but they address largely the
>> same issues. Greens would use the environment as a vehicle for their
>> totalitarian-style control, but in the end their policies would be so
>> extreme as to be unworkable (what were they after as a carbon tax?
>> $100+/tonne, as compared to China's $1.15, but only maybe?)
>>
>>
>
> I would say the greens use political control as a way to protect the
> environment. Few begin political careers then grab a cause, it's other
> way around. If you wanted to rule the world, you'd join the lib or lab
> party.
Why? They (Libs in particular) are not totalitarian enough for any sort
> On 29/03/2012 3:48 AM, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax wrote:
>> On 29/03/2012 1:02 AM, jg wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2012 9:04 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> jg wrote:
>>>>> Of all the promises of liberal govts, fresh air is well down the list.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, without liberal goverments, people would still be dying
>>>> constantly
>>>> from air polution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Liberals think they have a lot of bases covered, but they shouldn't and
>>> mostly don't pretend to be guardians of the environment.
>>
>> Their environmental policies (plant food taxes aside) don't differ
>> significantly from Labor's. The fact that they are measured as opposed
>> to knee-jerk makes them appear different, but they address largely the
>> same issues. Greens would use the environment as a vehicle for their
>> totalitarian-style control, but in the end their policies would be so
>> extreme as to be unworkable (what were they after as a carbon tax?
>> $100+/tonne, as compared to China's $1.15, but only maybe?)
>>
>>
>
> I would say the greens use political control as a way to protect the
> environment. Few begin political careers then grab a cause, it's other
> way around. If you wanted to rule the world, you'd join the lib or lab
> party.
of world domination. Brown is a great advocate of world domination under
the UN wealth redistributors. But again, the extreme left fail to think
it through - "one person, one vote, one value" would mean world
domination by China, where the most "one votes" would come from. The UN
themselves freely admit that their environmental front is really all
about tring for political control:
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): But one must say clearly that we
redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously,
the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has
to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental
policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
> It's the libs who block legislation against coal seam gas. Libs who want
> all out uranium mining & nuclear. WA libs gave us 'Roundup ready' crops,
> a gas hub north of Broome in (proposed) national heritage country. WA
> Libs building 5 new coal stations.
>
> Argue what's environmental and what's not, but libs continually come
> down on the side of what everyone else considers anti-environment.
close down everything and all have to be provided for by the State. But
at that stage, as Maggie thatcher would put it, by then the State have
no "other peoples' money" to dole out. The other people who produce the
wealth (me included) will have long since moved overseas to generate
wealth for another country.
jg
Mar 29, 2012, 12:08:30 AM3/29/12
to
>> ready' crops, a gas hub north of Broome in (proposed) national
>> heritage country. WA Libs building 5 new coal stations.
>>
>> Argue what's environmental and what's not, but libs continually come
>> down on the side of what everyone else considers anti-environment.
>
> What planet Do you live on? Not this one.
>
>
You are sounding like an automated radio signal into space yourself.
>> heritage country. WA Libs building 5 new coal stations.
>>
>> Argue what's environmental and what's not, but libs continually come
>> down on the side of what everyone else considers anti-environment.
>
> What planet Do you live on? Not this one.
>
>
jg
Mar 29, 2012, 1:11:39 AM3/29/12
to
that's a start at dominating something.
Brown is a great advocate of world domination under
> the UN wealth redistributors. But again, the extreme left fail to think
> it through - "one person, one vote, one value" would mean world
> domination by China, where the most "one votes" would come from. The UN
> themselves freely admit that their environmental front is really all
> about tring for political control:
> (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): But one must say clearly that we
> redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously,
> the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has
> to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
> environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental
> policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
>
>> It's the libs who block legislation against coal seam gas. Libs who want
>> all out uranium mining & nuclear. WA libs gave us 'Roundup ready' crops,
>> a gas hub north of Broome in (proposed) national heritage country. WA
>> Libs building 5 new coal stations.
>>
>> Argue what's environmental and what's not, but libs continually come
>> down on the side of what everyone else considers anti-environment.
>
> Again, it's all about balance. If we want all-out environmental, then we
> close down everything and all have to be provided for by the State. But
> at that stage, as Maggie thatcher would put it, by then the State have
> no "other peoples' money" to dole out. The other people who produce the
> wealth (me included) will have long since moved overseas to generate
> wealth for another country.
>
and those who say it's in balance now. Always the same arguments. We
almost always end up changing.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 29, 2012, 1:32:55 AM3/29/12
to
IPCC's own methods, the central estimate of the anthropogenic global
warming that would be forestalled by 2020 if Australia cut carbon
emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions is
– wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying *0.00005 Celsius*, or around
one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. If the whole world did the
same it would be less than 0.004°C. And the MWP was way warmer than the
IPCC predicts in its worst case scenarios. It would have been a pretty
pleasant climate to live in.
>
>>>
>>>>> In fairness, some lib state govts have been part of the agenda. Even
>>>>> Howard's govt had rebates for solar and planned an ETS, so did
>>>>> Turnbull.
>>>> Not disputing that, and I agree with some but not all of the Libs stuff
>>>> and Lab stuff; although the "There will be no carbon tax under a
>>>> government I lead." big lie has taken centre stage. Amazing that one
>>>> tax
>>>> and one lie can cause the pending extinction of a major political pardy
>>>> nationwide. Still, nothing should surprise us from Labor.
>>>>
>>>>> But as libs win elections on a platform of no carbon tax, they paint
>>>>> themselves into a corner - it's apparently a full 'steam' fossil fuel
>>>>> future with them. Where's your fresh air coming from?
>>>> It looks like the rest of the world will be in that corner with them,
>>>> all pulling back on plant food scheme madness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What country isn't trying to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels? Even
>>> nuclear requires a big outlay - where does the money come from?
>> It's all got to be properly planned though. Labor are incapable of doing
>> that kind of thing. And it has to be carefully adjudged viable. Anybody
>> wanna by a windmill?
>> http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html
>>
>
> Not using money from carbon to pay for its own replacement, when it will
> obviously need paying for, begs the question - what is the plan?
up paying for it, plus somehow also helping some African king refurbish
his palace, perhaps with some ducted air cond, doesn't sound like the
answer (to anything at all) to me.
Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax
Mar 29, 2012, 2:35:42 AM3/29/12
to
can believe if it comes from them. "2500 "scientists agree" and all that
bullshit.
>
>>> It's the libs who block legislation against coal seam gas. Libs who want
>>> all out uranium mining & nuclear. WA libs gave us 'Roundup ready' crops,
>>> a gas hub north of Broome in (proposed) national heritage country. WA
>>> Libs building 5 new coal stations.
>>>
>>> Argue what's environmental and what's not, but libs continually come
>>> down on the side of what everyone else considers anti-environment.
>>
>> Again, it's all about balance. If we want all-out environmental, then we
>> close down everything and all have to be provided for by the State. But
>> at that stage, as Maggie thatcher would put it, by then the State have
>> no "other peoples' money" to dole out. The other people who produce the
>> wealth (me included) will have long since moved overseas to generate
>> wealth for another country.
>>
>
> Every environmental issue there are those who say it needs addressing
> and those who say it's in balance now. Always the same arguments. We
> almost always end up changing.
and balanced manner. No need for kneejerk responses when there is no panic.
Bob F
Mar 29, 2012, 7:53:52 PM3/29/12
to
They support none of they crap you claim they do.
jg
Mar 29, 2012, 9:28:54 PM3/29/12
to
You cans easily verify everything I wrote about them in WA.
Abbott says coal seam gas mining should be limited, but won't support
legislation to actually achieve it.
Kangaroo Court Australia
Mar 30, 2012, 7:01:19 AM3/30/12
to
0 new messages