The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Zero Carbon Australia plan sets the bar > Comments

Zero Carbon Australia plan sets the bar : Comments

By Bob Brown, published 12/8/2010

The challenge posed by the climate crisis is enormous and will require every bit of resourcefulness and ingenuity we can muster.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Bob. You are clearly an intelligent man. Perhaps you can help me with some questions regarding climate change that I am struggling with.

1. How do YOU know that it is warming? A lot of evidence has emerged in recent times showing that much of the 'wsrming' is actually due to unexplained 'adjustments' to the temperature record.

2. How do YOU know that anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing warming, if it is occurring? The science says that a doubling of CO2 (if it were to happen) would lead to around 1 deg C warming. Any warming more than that relies on assumptions of positive feedback which are by no means proven.

3. The IPCC has been thrown into disregard through numerous overstatements and inaccuracies in recent months. The Climategate e:mails affair has revealed that many climate scientists have been engaging in advocacy and cutting corners on the science.

Appreciate your considered responses.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:46:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry,Bob,but the ZCA Stationary Energy Plan is not the solution and probably,on the scale it envisages, not even part of the solution.Even on a cursory reading by a sceptic it raises many more questions than it answers. But I am sure that those in the environment movement who are off with the pixies will grasp at the straw it offers.

In other words,it can't be done in the ridiculous time frame proposed and it probably can't be done on the scale proposed in any time frame.It is an extremely expensive option,very likely well beyond the ability of Australia to finance it even if it was feasible

This is not to say that renewables do not have part in a non-polluting electricity generating system but they are not practical to supply base load power.

For that we will have to build nuclear plants close to or on existing coal fired plant sites.The matter is urgent and the feeble,time worn objections of the anti-nuclear crowd will have to be ignored.

For a critique of the ZCA plan go to www.bravenewclimate.com
Posted by Manorina, Thursday, 12 August 2010 8:58:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Far from setting the bar I think the Zero Carbon Australia proposal brings home a reality check. I contains some heroic assumptions about Australians switching en masse to electric cars and giving up gas heaters. It also suggests that our total energy use in all sectors must be cut more than 50% which I think must mean a drop in living standards. The countryside would have even more unsightly power lines. The report assumes some pilot plant solar technology in the US and Spain can be both improved and scaled up thousands of times over. Both the per-plant cost estimates and the required redundancy are on the low side. Rather than gas fired generators to cover shortfalls in wind and solar generation the report assumes straw or wood can be burned as an alternative. I don't see it happening.

Some of these ideas may be feasible if phased in slowly over decades when fossil fuel is more expensive. It is simply not realistic to abandon coal, oil and gas between now and 2020 and embark on a huge spending dollar program with unknown outcomes. The Greens have ruled out one technology that could make substantial cuts in emissions. While expensive it should be a lot cheaper and less uncertain than attempts at 100% renewable power. I say 'attempts' because I don't believe it can be done in this lifetime.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:00:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob is strong on 'climate change'.. supporting what I consider the graft and corruption of Gore, Strong, Zoi and others... and the vested interest of Bob Carr and other Labor (possibly Liberal too) politicians or ex pollies.....

But Bob's party refused to answer MANY serious and important Questions put to them by the ACL.

"DECLINED TO ANSWER" was a repeated response on any issue regarding morality, exCEPT those which the Greens celebrate, which happen to the those values which most of us do NOT celebrate.

Brown is just using climate change for the same reasons the other high profile Watermelons like Gore, Strong and company are.. for political gain.

But in the end they are still "Red" on the inside, no matter how much green paint you paste on the outside....that's my opinion anyway.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:17:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So zero-carbon eh?

But we live in whats called a nitrogen-carbon cycle – google it and you find 351 million references to it.

zero-carbon is in short “unnatural”

Bob seeks to apply his piece of nonsense to anthropogenic carbon sources

But what about the non- anthropogenic warming sources?

Surely we need a greens policy on those inconvenient volcanic eruptions, which occur from time to time?

They are pumping out carbon in the “giggling-litres”

I read somewhere... it might have been here on this site... The effect of one volcanic eruption can eradicate the benefit of 5 years of human reduction strategies.

When brother Bob, the wayward tree-huggers and Trotsky entryist levellers of the greens can come up with a plan to prevent volcanic eruptions, then I will start to consider listening to their dingbat plans

Until then, I would not vote for a greenie in a fit and I would urge everyone else to consider commonsense first, before voting for brother Bob and his abnormal, anti-individualist proposals

The green movement agenda is to deny you your individual rights and choices by tying you up in pointless regulation and hamstringing you to suffer under their emotionally driven misguided will
Posted by Stern, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:18:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate sceptics were quick to jump onto this article!
First of all, the argument about global warming is over, really.
For one thing, even if the current warming were not due to human activity, it would still be a good idea to make efforts to abate it. Renewable energy is one very obvious move in that direction.

However, the science of global warming and climate change is well accepted now, and the IPCC has not been discredited. This depends on whether or not one wants to believe the world's major scientific bodies, and peer reviewed scientific literature. Oddly enough, everyone seems to accept these criteria, when it comes to medicine or engineering, but not when it comes to climate science.

As for discrediting renewable energy, I have to laugh when I see that nuclear power is offered as a solution to climate change, but in the same comment, the author says that dealing with climate change is an urgent matter. Apart from all the well-known negatives about nuclear power, it is clear that nuclear power plants could not be built in anywhere near enough time and numbers to actually have any effect on global warming.
Meanwhile,nuclear proponents ignore the greenhouse gases emitted by the nuclear fuel cycle in its entirety - starting from uranium mining and milling, and ending with the unsolved problem of what to do with dead radioactive nuclear power plants. Nuclear bomb testing, and nuclear wars are also productive of greenhouse gases and these are an unfortunate consequence of the nuclear industry, however much it preaches "peacefulness".
Posted by ChristinaMac, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:18:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob, while I admire your motivations, I think that you are on the wrong track!

We’ve got to work towards what is achievable in the short term. A Zero Carbon Australia plan is just simply NOT, within the timeframe that matters.

The thing that we DESPERATELY need to be striving for, with all our collective mental energies, is a sustainable society that is able to step past its current utter dependency on oil.

The major components should be the development of alternative liquid fossil fuels, much of which would be in line with your ZCA strategy, and a stabilisation of our population, quickly!

Getting people activated is all about the motivation. Unfortunately the climate change motive is not going to cut it, either because people don’t believe that it is real or because they believe that Australia can only play a tiny part in the global effort, and with projections in China, India and the rest of the world looking dismal, there is not much point in Oz going at it virtually alone.

But there is one huge motivation for action – our society will suffer enormously if the price or availability of oil changes for the worse, even to a relatively small extent. We are just so precariously positioned with our dependence on oil, and at a price close its current level!

If we could just galvanise people into realising this critically dangerous situation, then we should be able to really put a massive effort into it. If we were to do this, we would be reducing greenhouse gas emissions much more effectively than if we continue to piffle around the edges of the climate change issue as we now are.

A lot of the components of a ZCA would be implemented. But if we just set out to strive directly for a ZCA with climate change as the motive, we’ll achieve next to nothing!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:25:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear climate change deniers - This is a piece about solutions - you're in the wrong debate, please go back to your aluminium lined bunkers that protect you from the alien rays.

I must congratulate Bob for taking a stance that matches the solution to the massive problem we face. The Zero Carbon Plan is indeed radical, but anyone who reads its amazing detail will see that it is indeed possible - at least technically if not politically (yet!).

No political party in Australia, except maybe the socialist alliance, has yet grasped the scale of change needed to avoid catastrophic, runaway climate change, and it's good to see a party that is in parliament address the ZCA plan.

100% renewable energy in ten years is possible and affordable. It is also essential. It's time we got on with the job.
Posted by Trudes, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:37:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the ZCA is idealistic and over-optimistic. Of course it's improbable.

It relies on people removing luxuries out of their lives.

People don't want to give up their big 5-room, energy-sucking mansions 40km away from where they work.

They don't want to give up their fuel-sapping V8s and 4WDs which they drive 40km a day (1 person per car please) in slow traffic because the train system is too inconvenient.

People don't want "unsightly power lines".

People don't want to have to actually give up anything for this, so they give climate action lip service without action, or they deny the existence of climate change altogether.

The luxurious lifestyles we live now are ridiculous, yet for some reason we all believe it's a minimum standard of living.

So, the ZCA aims high for sure, but it outlines what is physically possible, not what is realistically possible. But we need to aim high if we are going to achieve anything.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:07:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have no doubt if Christians had as much faith as those believing in this rubbish then they would be able to walk on water. No wonder so much 'science' has lost so much credibility. Even Ms Gillard thinks so as seen by her gathering her 150 citizens. First it was global cooling, then the ozone layer and now global warming. What will be the next 'scientific' scam that robs billions from the taxpayer to fund the fundamentalist loonies.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tcm, "The luxurious lifestyles we live now are ridiculous, yet for some reason we all believe it's a minimum standard of living." quite right, not that I agree with it being ridiculous though it is extreme materialism for many. Mind you we are all competing to improve, it's the human condition.

We've all been brought up by parents who wanted more than they had, for their children - we all strive to give our children the best opportunity and the best we can - otherwise, what is it all about.

So to suggest we go backwards, is simply delusional - we won't and if anyone actually tries to impose that, there will be a heck of a backlash.

Already many people are turning anti-green and eco, sure some people are leaning further towards it too - but each of those groups is becoming harder and harder in their opinions.

We could pollute less, sure, and everyone is open to renewables, but not to the militant tyrannical "turn of the generators" talk or action, before you actually can replace them with a real solution.

Why is nuclear laughable, if the AGW problem is really so great, so immediate, then why do you scoff at one of the solutions? Because it's all about reducing materialism and not climate?

Lip service sure, lots of people agree we should do this or that, but after having worked hard for what they have, or do not quite have yet, to suggest it should all be given up for some fanciful folly that is unproven and then again, only in Australia to affect World warming, is just stupid. That's how most of us feel who are not fanatics either way - we think you are by the way.

You don't have to be a warmist or skeptic to realize that no one cares what happens in Australia, and we make no difference to the world.

You can have your green pie in the sky feelgood finger wagging fun, but don't try to put us backwards, we won't accept it
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:22:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is all wonderful feelgood stuff, but Bob of course forgets
that this is a global issue.

So even if Bob and every single Australian, shut down the
power stations, put on a loincloth and became hunter gatherers
once again, it would not make a scrap of difference to
global climate.

With global population increasing at the rate of 250'000
a day, in just 90 days our entire Australian population
would be replaced by another 20 million new consumers,
all burning carbon. For whilst cheap carbon energy is around,
do not kid yourselves that it will not be used by somebody.

Until we get our minds around the ever increasing human
population issue, which the Greens largely ignore, a bit
of Aussie Greens feelgood policy will do little but make
a few dreamers feel better about themselves, with no real
consequences in the real world.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:31:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus,

I pretty much agree with you. I'm actually pro-nuclear too.

We cannot try and oppress human nature, it would only have the opposite effect. Just like with socialism, while it's all idealistic, it counters human nature and therefore has to be enforced and therefore is totally unworkable without taking away what we believe to be basic human rights.

But I disagree that what Australia does is irrelevant. Australia has had a big impact in the world of medicine by leading the way in research over the years.

We can have a similar impact by making progress here which can be used to lead other larger economies forward.

By putting forward a war-chest of options, the ZCA sets out the possibilities. I believe it is our responsibility to take action by doing what we can. At the least we will reduce the rate of depletion of fossil fuel reserves.

And in terms of over-consumption and materialism, this comes down to education. People can learn to be more responsible with their choices.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:40:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spain was not nearly as stupid as this "Zero Carbon" rubbish, but has driven it self to the verge of bankruptcy by driving a bit of the way down that road.

Their whole program is now in collapse. Much of it now lies abandoned & rusting because it just won't work.

It would be such a waste to send Bob over there to studdy this failure, & the others in Denmark, & Germany, as his desire is not to produce a working alternate system, it is merely to destroy what we have.

Anyone who wants to play with alternate energy should go to these countries, that have led the way, & hire some of their experts. They should come cheaply. Most of them are now out of work, as the systems so touted by Bob & company fail, one by one
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:07:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, you're point would be taken, if it were true.

Spain's program has gone backwards because the government has removed subsidies because of the GFC, which was caused by stupidity in the banking sector, not "by driving a bit of the way down that road" as you falsely assert.

The program didn't fail, the economy that is required to support it did.

It is the case across Europe.

You've either been misinformed or are intent on misinforming others.

YABBY,

True, human over-population is the root cause of many problems we face. So why are our major parties encouraging birth-rates in this country? We can import people to help support the aging population crisis.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:26:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This new Aistralian study agrees with a very comprehensive study called CARBON FREE NUCLEAR FREE written by Dr Arjun Makhijani in the US in 2007, which carefully and meliculously calculates that with relatively cheap available renewable technology, the US could be carbon free and nuclear free by 2950.
The data is in and many states in the US are using this roadmap as their textbook as I write.
You can download it on IEER.org for free.
Helen Caldicott
Posted by Helen Caldicott, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:26:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hah .. we're being caldicotted

"US could be carbon free and nuclear free by 2950"

2950!

Sure they will, some more exaggerating there Helen, or just the usual sloppy attention to detail?
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob,
we had a PM who was deeply committed to doing something about emissions.
You and your party would not work with him and voted down the ETS.

Why, when you had the chance to do something positive, even if you thought it was not enough, did you act so negatively.

The Greens and the Liberal about face cost us a PM that was prepared to do something. JG urged the dropping of the ETS because of the political BS that the greens and Libs carried on with.

I think you missed an opportunity to work with someone who is committed to climate change, Kevin Rudd, and now are prepared to do a deal with a PM who will act on it only if it is ok by the polls and the backroom boys. Of course Tony Abbott thinks the whole lot is crap, so you have really contributed to Australia moving back about 15years on action against climate change.

I lost a lot of confidence in the greens over this. To me this is similar to the actions of Meg Lees of the Democrats, whose support of the GST saw the demise of the party in subsequent elections.
Posted by Aka, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:35:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Herbert, in answer to your questions:

"1. How do YOU know that it is warming? A lot of evidence has emerged in recent times showing that much of the 'wsrming' is actually due to unexplained 'adjustments' to the temperature record."

-The "Adjustment" is called homogenisation of data and it is necessary to account for instrument degradation and changes to the areas surrounding stations. All station data needs "adjustment" to make the data usable for forecasting and longer term climate monitoring. The science has *not* been impacted by homogeneity adjustments. If it were there would be outrage by climate scientists at such shoddy work.
What you are actually mentioning here is the failure of "sceptics" to understand the very basics of climate science.
As for the other evidence: Animal migration, ice loss, tropical convergence zone expansion and last but not least: temperature measures from oceans, air and ground.
BTW. Ask the Russians how they "know" the climate is changing!
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:36:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...cont

"2. How do YOU know that anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing warming, if it is occurring? The science says that a doubling of CO2 (if it were to happen) would lead to around 1 deg C warming. Any warming more than that relies on assumptions of positive feedback which are by no means proven."

The best theories say that CO2 + feedbacks are relevant and provide specific predictions as to how the warming should proceed. Evidence backs this theory up and has eliminated all the viable competing theories. Sun output, cosmic rays and clouds, various periodic theories as well as less likely theories have all had their predictions compared with CO2...and CO2 is the last one left standing. As for "unproven" feedback: Satellite measures are in accordance with these theories, as is all terrestrial data collected over last decade.
Sorry, but amongst climate scientists there are no viable competing theories, and the predictions of CO2 are being matched so well that no one qualified is doubting it much...A bit like discarding electro-magnetism for "ether theory": not necessary, not rational.

"3. The IPCC has been thrown into disregard through numerous overstatements and inaccuracies in recent months. The Climategate e:mails affair has revealed that many climate scientists have been engaging in advocacy and cutting corners on the science."

It has been thoroughly investigated and found to be a beat-up. No misbehaviour has been found, just that scientists get stroppy if they are constantly hounded by those wasting their time. (who wouldn't?)
Of the IPCC's thousands of submissions they found 3 or 4 statements that were more hyperbole than fact. the rest of this international summary document has been found to be essentially accurate. How many company annual reports could be said to be that accurate?
Read the New Scientist review of the IPCC beat ups if you actually want a balanced report.
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:39:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Brown should pay more attention to the electoral research run by both Labor and the Liberal of which he must have gleaned some hints.
Power bills have gone through the roof in recent years. Up 40 per cent since 2007 (compared to about 8 per cent for inflation generally). Very little of that increase has to do with green power but any suggestion of adding further to power bills through an impossibly expensive remake of the entire Australian grid is poison at the moment, even if it was technically possible which is doubtful. On a par with suggestions for increasing immigration. Why do you think the Libs have been harping on about power bills? Why do you think the CPRS got deferred? And never mind the technicalities and talk of moral challenges. Even if Brown gets into coalition with Gillard he will have extreme difficulty in getting even moderate proposals up, if it means increases to power bills.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:49:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TCM “By putting forward a war-chest of options, the ZCA sets out the possibilities. I believe it is our responsibility to take action by doing what we can. At the least we will reduce the rate of depletion of fossil fuel reserves.”

Well you do that TCM

But I insist on opting-out of your “responsibility”

“And in terms of over-consumption and materialism, this comes down to education. People can learn to be more responsible with their choices”.

Imho I acquired sufficient “education”, although my wife is insatiable but only in her quest for greater knowledge and qualifications.. but we are both “responsible” in our choices already, they being all within the limits of our income budget...


Re “People don't want to give up their big 5-room, energy-sucking mansions 40km away from where they work.”


You might not agree with what are our personal choice of 54 sq, 6 bedroom house, complete with ballroom, music room, 3 spas (two in. One out), four toilet and four showers and a few lounge rooms, where my wife and I choose to live but, just as I do not seek to influence your private choices, you do not get to determine how much we earn nor how we choose to spend it

But on the enviro-plus side, I mix between a 10km road trip and telecommuting, whilst my wife has her clinic in our double garage (converted for the purpose).



Hasbeen ” Their whole program is now in collapse. Much of it now lies abandoned & rusting because it just won't work.”

Sounds like the UK Nationalised industries, immediately before dearest Margaret sorted the hulks out..

The outrageous squandering of taxes on schemes of collectivist “nation building”

I have no problem with “alternate energy”, happy to invest in what might work but

it has to pay-its-own-way and not rely on tax-payer subsidy or regulation to curb the effectiveness of traditional, competetive processes,

Nor by the draconian regulations demanded by the emotionally twisted zealots of any political camp
Posted by Stern, Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:52:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*But I disagree that what Australia does is irrelevant. Australia has had a big impact in the world of medicine by leading the way in research over the years.*

TCM, there is a difference here. It's fine for Australia to
do some research in these areas. That is quite different to
what Bob is proposing, ie rush headlong into building huge
projects which globally have yet to be proven over time.

So build a demonstration project, test the technology.

Now that US Venture capital is entering this industry
in a big way, what we know today could well be out of
date tomorrow, or available cheaper and better.

Somebody has to pay for Bob's grand schemes and it will
either be taxpayers or consumers. Given what he is
proposing, the cost is enormous, the risk enormous.

The actual benefits in terms of effect on climate?
Nothing.

Perhaps we should learn to walk properly, before we
decide to run as Bob proposes, throwing megadollars
at yet another scheme that sounded like a good idea
at the time. History shows that the law of unintended
consequences, invariably kicks in and things don't
land up quite as envisaged. Only the huge Govt debt
left by these schemes, takes generations to pay off
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stern, the house sounds lovely. WOW!

I spent many years living in the 20Ft by 7Ft 11 inches of my yacht that you could reach without crawling. My carbon foot print was so small that even a crazed greenie could not have found it.

I believe I now deserve such a home, but could not face the cleaning.

Trashcanman, the GFC was caused by ridiculous lending policies forced onto the banks by crazy socialists lending policies coming from the Clinton White House.

Spain's misguided investment in wave power for example failed because it didn't work.

Any generation technology which requires any kind of subsidy, or forced percentage of use, [still a subsidy] is a failure, & has no place in a free country. It is most unfair that many ordinary Spaniards are now paying for greenie lies, & excesses. As green garbage doesn't work it should be scrapped.

Ozandy, you sound like a reasonably well educated person. Please do us the courtesy of recognising that many of us are also reasonably well educated, & stop pushing your unbelievable propaganda. No one, with out a vested interest in AGW such as yourself, could even to pretend to believe it.

For those misguided folk here, who have some emotive reason to pay excess for their electricity, I say good on you, go for it. I also say, mind your own business. I have no such misguided reason, & have no interest in joining you in your foolishness.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 12 August 2010 1:28:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Please can some kind person define the term “climate crisis?”
It appears from Dr. Brown’s essay that this undefined something is the greatest threat on earth. No evidence is advanced to support the thesis of the coming supposed catastrophe.
Likewise it is by no means clear to me how replacement of “polluting coal power” by so called renewables will avert an unspecified “climate crisis.”
By the way has the good Senator thought about replacing his “polluting coal power” with nuclear power?
After all we know from the Switkowski report that nuclear generation has an unequalled record in respect to health and safety. Further carbon dioxide emission does not occur in the generation of nuclear electricity
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 12 August 2010 2:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ozandy,

"The "Adjustment" is called homogenisation of data and it is necessary to account for instrument degradation and changes to the areas surrounding stations. All station data needs "adjustment" to make the data usable for forecasting and longer term climate monitoring. The science has *not* been impacted by homogeneity adjustments. If it were there would be outrage by climate scientists at such shoddy work."

Then perhaps you can explain how a discontinuous non-overlapping temperature record from three separate sites in Nepal was 'homogenised' into a single record showing a 9-degree-per-century rise in temperature?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/more-gunsmoke-this-time-in-nepal/#more-23293

I'm interested to see the maths you use for that.

And as for 'The Russians are coming!' didn't we sort that out in another thread? No answer from you there that I could see..
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 12 August 2010 2:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are currently using on a global scale approximately 13,670 000 cubic metres of oil and 17,000 000 tons of coal every single day.

To put this in perspective, the volume of this is (assuming that 1 ton of coal is 1 cubic metre) 1 km x 1 km 100 hectares) to a depth of 30.67 metres or a ten storey building.

Just thought you'd like to know
Posted by GilbertHolmes, Thursday, 12 August 2010 3:05:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bean-counting bureaucrat strikes again!
Posted by GilbertHolmes, Thursday, 12 August 2010 3:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

Is it only subsidised energy generation that gets the chop in a free country in your world-view? Or should we be cutting out other subsidised industries too.

Let's start with mining, automotive, farming, private health, private education I could go on...

But your argument only applies to "energy generation" doesn't it. So I assume you think we should shut down coal power plants then too, as they are subsidised too.

So, really, what is it you are saying?
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 12 August 2010 5:35:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations Bob for promoting the Zero Carbon Australia plan. You are quite correct that this plan sets the bar for governments and climate campaigners.

There is absolutely no excuse for the WA government's plan to bring on line three new coal-fired power stations and resurrect another two old ones. We need to be moving in the direction of 100% renewable energy as the ZCA plan demonstrates is possible.

I look forward to the Greens adopting as policy the plan for 100% renewable energy in Australia by 2020.

Alex Bainbridge
Socialist Alliance candidate for Perth
Posted by AlexBainbridge, Thursday, 12 August 2010 6:44:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen….”… but could not face the cleaning.”

HA HA, nor my wife… we have a cleaner

This is the house she built… as a single mother…

But I would have personally been delighted to have experienced your lifestyle, afloat… I have suggested something similar as an option but the “lady ain’t for anything “ahoy””…..

atleast, not so far...

As we see, the best intentions of the collectivists are, like the “investment” decisions of government, invariably incapable of passing any tests of financial probity. Be it bad banking regulations or pointless “new energy ideas”

And of course, the energy consumed to process the materials used in the manufacture of those huge wind turbines – is that ever factored in to their “carbon footprint”.

Greenies were infiltrated by Trotskyites and other extreme left wing wannabes when the USSR collapsed 20 years ago.

Hence, the “green agenda” is based on the same failed policies of Marx, Lenin and Stalin and will, as with the policies of Marx, Lenin and Stalin only produce mass starvation and entire generations of people experiencing a groveling and grubby mere existence instead of being allowed to enjoy a rewarding life.

I further agree… the inclination of the “green zealots” to condemn and damn the view of anyone who happens to disagree with the “omnipotent green mantra”, which must have been personally confirmed by God, one night when he just happened to dropped by.

GilbertHolmes “The bean-counting bureaucrat strikes again!”

Ah I have been accused of that… actually I do admit to being one …. But look on the bright side…. We need a big hole to bury all the garbage in.

TCM you addressed hasbeen, I will add my input

I do not believe in industry welfare or middle class welfare of any sort and minimal individual welfare, except for those born or acquiring extreme and profound congenital defects or injuries, which prohibit them from being able to support themselves.

less need for government revenue would allow personal and indirect taxes to drop back leaving money in the pockets of those who worked for it
Posted by Stern, Thursday, 12 August 2010 7:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For all those still wishing to debate if climate change is a reality - I suggest further reading/ study / personal reflection before pretending your opinions are informed.

I am completing my environmental science degree and having reviewed the science, have no doubt of the link between increased and continuing carbon emissions causing massive and catastrophic climate change. We are well beynd this. Even some of the more 'right wing' polititians I have spoken with about this agree that we have exhausted that discussion and have moved onto strategies to mitigate and adapt.

I do not have fear as some peoples reactions seem to suggest,that our standard of living would decrease - I think there are many opportunities for our standard of living to improve. The amount of energy we could save by greater energy efficiency and more informed and responsible design is huge, before we even consider further strategies.

I refuse to fall prey to fear campaigns which clip the wings of zero emissions strategies, and back them entirely with much effort and consideration. Indeed I feel greatly encouraged by the many people in my community making more informed choices, and raising the bar on emissions cuts in their own lives and businesses.
Posted by active mind, Thursday, 12 August 2010 9:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How interesting active mind.

I hope you chose your institution well.

A couple of years ago I had reason to peruse the course notes of the environmental science course at one of our larger universities.

I was somewhat surprised to find that even at the end of the third year, the students were not required to have covered enough maths to meet the requirements of a year 12 high school math C course.

Even in the unlikely event that a massive effort were put into maths in the last year of the course, our environmental science graduates would not be qualified to teach senior high math, & most definitely would not have the math required to understand the physics claimed to be operating by our so called climate scientists.

One of the worst things to have happened to government in Oz today is that hundreds of so called environmental "scientists" are finding their way into environmental departments in state & local government.

Have a nice day
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
activemind "For all those still wishing to debate if climate change is a reality - I suggest further reading/ study / personal reflection before pretending your opinions are informed."

How kind of you to lower yourself to post on such a lowly forum .. thank you so much.

Typical of the AGW believer, you equate any change of climate to AGW.. hence your statement above. You are of course aware the climate has changed pretty well constantly for the entire existence of the planet aren't you? It's not just since man has been here that the climate has changed.

I don't have any doubts that the climate changes, I welcome it, it is natural. Some of it obviously is caused by man's changing of the world for agriculture etc, but I don't swallow the CO2/temperature link, it's not proven and climate science IMHO is not advanced enough to understand it. I know that doesn't suit the big egos in climate science today, being the center of attention tends to inflate some people, nes pa?

I am skeptical as to the reasons, hysterically given by some, and the huge exaggerations by many.

"I refuse to fall prey to fear campaigns" me too, I will not be bullied by pretenders who use authority to claim the science is settled, as in we know everything, we don't you don't so come the raw prawn with me.

BTW .. many people have professional qualifications, don't brag OK, you'll only draw attention to the fact, you only have a minor degree.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 13 August 2010 7:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Active mind “....am completing my environmental science degree”

How nice for you but that makes you someone with a declared “vested interest”


“.....causing massive and catastrophic climate change”


Or not .... time will tell and I have yet to understand what "catastrophic" really means or "massive" foir that matter

and even if change was "massive and catastrophic"... what makes you think mankinds puny efforts could possibly mitigate it

maybe we let nature take care of nature and accept that we are but mortal.

We have no reliable science of "climate change".

We remain incapable of predicting volcanic eruptions, earthquakes or sunamis and the "science" for those "natural events" has been around for centuries, not just a few years...

so when you suggest “strategies to mitigate and adapt.”

I say - don't pretend you know that massive and catastrophic climate change is being caused by anything you feel you can control or mitigate against

neither you nor your lecturers have a clue

but youa re free to move to wherever you want and adapt as your heart directs but don’t expect to compel me to follow or we will end up with some serious “civil strife”

“I refuse to fall prey to fear campaigns which clip the wings of zero emissions strategies, and back them entirely with much effort and consideration. Indeed I feel greatly encouraged by the many people in my community making more informed choices, and raising the bar on emissions cuts in their own lives and businesses.”

Good for you and your neighbours

I too..... refuse to fall prey to fear campaigns (echo)... initiated by environmental movements, infiltrated by Trotskyites and other left wing radicals and promoting yet another version of the previously failed edicts of Marx and other botherers

I see hasbeen and Rpg have already made appropriate observation to this post... so I guess, activemind, you have scored a hat-trick

actually I have a post which describes AGW using only the quotes of Lenin.. I must drag it out again
Posted by Stern, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:02:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GilbertHolmes writes:

<< We are currently using on a global scale approximately 13,670 000 cubic metres of oil and 17,000 000 tons of coal every single day. >>

Rpg writes:

<< Typical of the AGW believer, you equate any change of climate to AGW.. hence your statement above. You are of course aware the climate has changed pretty well constantly for the entire existence of the planet aren't you? It's not just since man has been here that the climate has changed. >>

So on the one hand we’ve got many people who think that the issue is just so enormous that Australia couldn’t play a meaningful part in it even if we were super-successful at implementing ZCA.

Then on the other hand we’ve got many people that don’t believe AGW is real or significant.

And we’ve also got a very large group that think it is significant but are loathe to do anything about it because of the fear of the economic disruption it might cause.

So, we’ve really got Buckley’s chance of addressing this issue in more than a token manner…..unless….we look at it in a different way and find a motivation that just about everyone can agree with and see great urgency in.

Lo and behold, there is indeed such a motivation – the extremely precarious position that our society is in with its addiction to oil and at a price somewhere near its current level, as I explained in my first post. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10814#179539

If we address this factor with the vigour that it deserves, we would be reducing greenhouse gas emissions much more effectively than if we continued to fumble around with climate change as our primary motive.

This point is of enormous importance and yet my first post generated no responses.

active mind, Stern, Hasbeen, rpg and others, what do you reckon?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 13 August 2010 8:06:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ludwig, I see your point on running out of oil, but believe we can replace fossil deposit oil with oils and fuel derived from crops and fuels like coal with nuclear energy.

I suspect that many of the hysterical eco/green types are not interested in solutions to CO2 reduction that does not redistribute wealth or does not allow for suppression of lifesytle.

If they really cared, as you clearly do, about reducing CO2 emission, then nuclear energy, regardless of whatever other problems it brings to the table is zero CO2 when it is running - so therefore has to be of high consideration, but it is not and I do enjoy watching the eco/green AGW hysterics squirm and try to change the debate whenever it is mentioned.

Either it is huge problem where we bring all potential solutions to bear, or it is not - clearly it is not.

When the eco/greens give up trying to fiddle with my lifestyle and address the issue on a massive scale, instead of house by house person by person, the way they do in fora like this, we'll get somewhere.

At the moment, they just rant at people who disagree with them, because that's easy .. it also allows for personal involvement for them that is probably immensely satisfying when clustered together in their cells (like good little socialists! .. sarc/)
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 13 August 2010 11:35:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, if you, & the others talking about peak oil are correct, we don't have to worry about global warming at all, as there is not enough CO2 in the oil [they say] that's left to make any difference.

From the Oz point of view, we have very large reserves in both shale oil, & gas. These may be a little more expensive, but only very little. Still both are also [probably] finite.

We are also in an outstanding position to grow our own transport liquid fuel. Not ethanol, that is a major mistake, but the recently developed bio-diesel technology, using algae grown in ponds.

Our hot, almost rainless, interior with a great supply of artisan water would generate a new major industry for the Oz inland.

Of course it would be ironic if hundreds of thousands of acres of ponds, evaporating massively, gave us local climate change. Just imagine, a green centre that could be generated would mean we could then expand out migrant intake. Funny world, isn't it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 13 August 2010 1:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig

I agree with your point, sustainability is not “a” major issue

It is “The” Major Issue

And it has nothing to do with AGW, climate change or the draconian consequences of Zero Carbon strategies.

it as we both know, “sustainability” has everything to do with the fundamental driver which is behind resource depletion, food scarcity, pollution, deforestation, ocean acidification and most real blights

Global Population Numbers.

But this debate was never about that.

This debate is about the real political motivation being the likes of Bob Brown and his stupid ideas to enslave Australians to the abhorrence of his “Green New World”.
Posted by Stern, Friday, 13 August 2010 1:16:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It makes sense to move into alternate energy –for a whole host of reasons.
And even if it means we double or quadruple funding for R&D on solar etc I’m all for it.

BUT!

The Greens and their “Socialist Alliance” & Caldicott fellow travellers will not be sated with that—they have a much more robust appetite.Bob hasn’t mentioned in this speech, but the AGW platform to which he pays obeisance holds all developed nations accountable for the recent floods in Pakistan, the past famines in Africa, the coming mega disaster in Bangladesh --and anything else that goes wrong in between!

And AGW luminaries have aspirations that we will pick-up the tab for all of the above. And, I strongly suspect, the Greens and certainly their socialist fellow travellers would be happy to sign us up to any number of new age covenants that would have us paying through the nose for the underdeveloped worlds bedroom warm and fuzzies ,just as long it gave then the warm and fuzzies too.

Now Bob is a nice guy, talks well ,is very presentable – but just be wary if you are thinking of voting for his party---there is a lot more to the Greens than Bob Browns pretty face --- and not much of it is good!..

However all may not be not lost ,I have a feeling that after Bob retires the potpourri of luddites, new agers and Democrat refugees
( Andrew Bartlett) that make up the greens will simply fade away
(after they hack each other to death).
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 14 August 2010 8:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stern:
"I do not believe in industry welfare or middle class welfare of any sort and minimal individual welfare, except for those born or acquiring extreme and profound congenital defects or injuries, which prohibit them from being able to support themselves.

less need for government revenue would allow personal and indirect taxes to drop back leaving money in the pockets of those who worked for it"

While this all SEEMS fair and reasonable, your usual fairly astute reasoning is actually absent here, Stern. Your taxes would not be dropping back anywhere, they'd simply be redirected to deal with the problems created by this unworkable ideology. Unless you have some solution for, say for example, the massive increase in crime as a result. Unfortunately we don't have a colony we can send them all off to, and wars have been done to death. Not to mention the hike in food prices; the need for government to take over essential services; longer and deeper recessions etc etc.

Your extreme ideology may be opposite to extreme socialism on the spectrum, but in the real world it's just as stupid and unworkable and damaging.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Saturday, 14 August 2010 6:22:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And I assume your wife's clinic is not medical, for then your three spas and other luxuries would probably have significantly been paid for by Medicare (if not completely), so you should probably give them back. Please tell me I'm wrong, I do actually respect you and would hate to lose that.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Saturday, 14 August 2010 6:31:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frankly I see the Greens as Spoilers! And quite dangerous to Australia.Brown may come across as a nice fellow but so do all successful con-men and women. The impression I have of this lot is that they would be most happy to wind back the civilization clock to protect flora and fauna so long as they were there to run what was left.

The questions that worry me are these.
What drives the Climate?. To be able to calculate as opposed to guessing via computer wishful thinking AKA 'modeling', what the changes may be and where they will occur surely is the most important knowledge of all. Is any Gov body actually and seriously looking at that!! Climate change has been with us since day one. There is nothing unusual or untoward about it as its a constant. The trick is to learn to live with it.
Why is it that the Government, a body elected to look after all the citizens of Australia not just some of them so keen to spend so much of our money to reduce our carbon footprint when in the overall scheme of things its minuscule.
Why ,with the reserves of coal Australia has arn't we seriously and vigorously working out how to use it with negligible pollution. To me thats a no-brainer. We have the stuff in abundance at the least cost of any other fuel so where is the research into using it safely. And don’t tell me it can't be done. We have some very bright people out there and we just need them to be turned loose on the problem.

Why not Nuclear. According to the people in the Industry the fears that are raised by all those in opposition to the idea have been addressed years ago. The bottom line is that all the green alternatives seem to fail in providing long term sustainable base line power at a price we can afford.
It really is about time Politicians started planning long term for the benefit of all Australians not just them or their party.
Posted by denisj, Saturday, 14 August 2010 6:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TCM “redirected to deal with the problems created by this unworkable ideology.”

Disagree…

welfare is a crutch, used not just by those who need it but by the indolent, whose selfishness, grabs a free-be instead of working.

Take away the crutch and you will be surprised how many can really walk.

We do not need middleclass welfare.

We do not need corporate welfare, favouring certain industries but not others: such as the supposed “environmentally friendly”, especially when “government” is so totally hopeless at picking “winners”.

We need to leave the market to do what the market does best: match the expectations of consumers with the offerings of suppliers.

“Your extreme ideology may be opposite to extreme socialism on the spectrum, but in the real world it's just as stupid and unworkable and damaging.”

Nothing extreme with suggesting we are better off with small versus big government

Ronald Reagan promoted it
Margaret Thatcher promoted it

The USSR collapsed because their “big government” could not deliver what “smaller “ western democratic government could.

If we look at what you have just written

My “ideology” has worked for centuries.

Your left-wing ideology is the one which collapsed.

It is time for you to think again about what works and what fails

And the evidence is written in the last quarter of the 20th century

All you need to do is what I have already done (well I have lived it, since 1950)…

I suggest you research it and read the evidence,

Don’t get caught in political rhetoric, it will neither feed, house or clothe you.

Think for yourself, experience the richness of self-reliance and the self-esteem which comes from doing things for yourself;

instead of wasting time, waiting for government promises to arrive or ensuring your neighbor does not have more than you

my wife’s “clinic” is for naturopathy, hypnotherapy and acupuncture, although she originally qualified with a medical degree and worked as a pathologist.

She is expert in maintenance of body image, life quality and longevity

And at 62 year old, she still looks good for someone in their early 40s
Posted by Stern, Sunday, 15 August 2010 10:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob, what happened to the motion in the senate?
Posted by LoriIsAwesome, Sunday, 15 August 2010 11:16:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Brown,
the tragedy is with this site is that topic like this tend to be taken over by the curmudgeonly visceral and largely aggressive ignorant deniers.

the whole idea that there maybe an alternative to the current lifestyle that will send us back to loin cloths and the hunters gathers is a foreign concepts. It hasn't occurred to some that too many hunters& gatherers would result in the same issue e.g. the Maori plight before the white man came.Albeit the latter simply created different more wide spread problems.

Some ill informed even went as far as to (ludicrously) imply that green technology was a contributive factor to Spain's fiscal problems.

Another claim he doesn't need any more knowledge and then argues that he keeps his ecological footprint under check by virtue of the limitations of his superior wealth and youthful looking wife?
Then there are those who have no sensible answer to or understand your point and "just don't like it! (emotional foot stamp)" because the shallow sensationalist media chase the buck rather than boring objectivity....the latter doesn't sell.
Then there's the gratuitous advice to the Greens to roll in the mud with the rest of 'the great unwashed'.
The link between those and the point of your article escapes me.

While I may not agree that the plan you either politically or specifically that solution in the plan is apropos to the reality of rampant self interest masquerading as reasoned analysis. At least this article was prepared to look at other alternatives it is a pity a few others aren't prepared to look beyond visceral party platform
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 15 August 2010 5:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator "the tragedy is with this site is that topic like this tend to be taken over by the curmudgeonly visceral and largely aggressive ignorant deniers."

and reference to "Posted by examinator, Thursday, 12 August 2010 6:41:12 PM" - thread title "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"

quoting examinator "I repeat I have no interest in proselytizing any solution simply because of the level of defensive galloping inertia that abounds here"

I find anyone who posts ascerbic criticism of other posters opinions and denigrates their exercise of a free entitlement to hold and express a viewpoint or opinion, -

whilst lacking the backbone to express their own heart felt views (as admitted by examinator above) represents the personification of ponmpousity at its most contemptible

really examinator, crawling up to Bob Brown, like some reptilian sychophant

"Bob Brown,
the tragedy is with this site....."

"the tragedy with this site" is you manage to keep finding it
to post your vacuous comments.
Posted by Stern, Monday, 16 August 2010 8:11:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stern claims:

"I find anyone who posts ascerbic criticism of other posters opinions and denigrates their exercise of a free entitlement to hold and express a viewpoint or opinion, "

then writes:

"really examinator, crawling up to Bob Brown, like some reptilian sychophant

"Bob Brown,
the tragedy is with this site....."

"the tragedy with this site" is you manage to keep finding it
to post your vacuous comments."

The tragedy is that you can't even spell either acerbic or sycophant.

The sadness is that you fail to apply your rules to yourself.

Does nothing for your credibility either.

So you don't like Bob Brown, big deal. How about offering a comprehensive alternative on how Australia can sustain itself in a future of diminishing energy sources? If you can crawl away from slagging off others, that is.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Monday, 16 August 2010 8:27:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended].
Posted by Stern, Monday, 16 August 2010 9:10:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hahaha

Socialism by Stealth! (Sorry Col, I got tired of waiting. I hope you don't mind)

'really examinator, crawling up to Bob Brown, like some reptilian sychophant'

Yeah I got that too. Wonderfully put Col. I have visions of a young pontificator with an apple for the teacher. A social science teacher of course, no doubt with a book case full of socialist propaganda, and a green tweed jacket.

'represents the personification of ponmpousity at its most contemptible

Yep, the pontificator is indeed in fine form.

As are you Col, though your form is of course of a different league.

Highly entertaining. 4 Stars.

Hasbeen,

I concur with your views on the mathematical requirements for the average social 'science' student. Most who tentatively attempted Statistics 101, the only thing close to a mathematical requirement for their courses, found it a traumatic experience. Most barely understood what a p-value was by the end, and none ever grasped the difference between correlation and causation. The course was dumbed down so much for this 'market' of student, that the opening 2 hour lecture was devoted to making pie and bar graphs, and a 'cheat sheet' of mathematical formulas was allowed into the final exam. I fear it would have been of no use to this lot though.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 16 August 2010 10:32:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I start by saying I have great respect for Bob Brown. Even a climate change sceptic should surely see the benefits of lower carbon emissions and the other benefits of less pollution and using renewable sources that we have in abundance.

It is indeed a challenge. I am not sure about pricing pollution perse as I can see it will push up prices without the promises of reducing pollution. We may just end up paying more for being polluted and Australia's global contribution is small albeit high per capita. Will people really use less energy if it costs more (other than the very poor)? Or will they just reduce their spending in other areas?

I admit I am not sure about this side of the climate change debate (the ETS or putting a price on carbon), particularly understanding the relationship or how valid the emphasis on AGW and natural warming cycles for which we should also be proactive.

We may be better off just putting in place renewable infrastructure, better farming practices, using more natural fibres/products etc to wean ourselves of the higher polluting lifestyles.

There is no doubt we will have to reduce living standards - but our living standards are already more than adequate and excessive in comparison to many of our neighbours.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 16 August 2010 11:49:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does not matter a fig whether Bob Brown is right or wrong, nor does
it matter whether the sceptics are right or wrong.
The massive infrastructure regime needed will not be built due to the
reduction in available energy and the needed capital will not be
available in a time of zero growth.

We will be flat out making the most of what we have now.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 27 August 2010 1:19:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy