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

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.

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

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.

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

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?