File under, "You just can't make this stuff up."

"Hey, say what you think and enjoy. You will also
learn to tolerate slightly eccentric types such
as Dickie:)"

Too true Yabby. They may also realise that you are incapable of remaining on topic. You and Col Rouge make such a charming couple, babbling and spluttering on all matters irrelevant to this thread.

Two little men together. Two little foul-mouthed,vulgar tossers who couldn't make it in the Old Dart and slipped past Australia's Immigration to abuse and exploit native Australians.

Yabby bragging about his live exports on the death ships, his "fail-proof" investments and expert opinion on Catholics to cockroaches and Col Rouge the “blowing it out your ass” charmer, gloating over his own genitalia.

What a disgrace you both are to National Forum, contaminating OLO with your profanities and with an arrogance befitting the moral pygmies you are, replete with bloated egos.

But what can the myriad of posters, who have crossed paths with these tossers, expect?

Though I understood that the "Motherland" had ceased granting cheap passage to its trash to rid them to the colonies.

Isn't it a shame that these "types" don't just move to Iran or Saudi Arabia where these are not pressing concerns? If course, the concerns they will be faced with may be tougher than their preaching to us.

Dikcie “My contribution to this thread is about rescuing our highly contaminated eco systems from a government regulatory regime which is responsible for the dire state of Australia's environment”

How

1 Challenge the authority of the elected government in the courts or

2 Foment revolution against the elected government? or

3 Just talk it up on OLO and hope the wind catches it?

I figure the third.

The first one would mean you were exposed to public scrutiny.

The second would leave you exposed to prosecution for sedition and I don’t think you have the bottle for that.

So by default we are left with 3; the armchair warrior option.

I think government regulation should be there to adjudicate not dictate in matters of public policy.

I prefer smaller government, leaving the resources and right of choice with the people the government is there to represent.

I have never ever been for no government or the violent overthrow of the democratic system which attempts, in am imperfect world, to “govern for us”.

What you see as “rescuing our highly contaminated eco systems from a government regulatory regime” would be, if you were to do more than just mouth words, is sedition.

Trust the system, imperfect as it is, get yourself elected to where you can influence legislation and change the system we have.

All you are suggesting through your “rescuing . . . from government” will end in disaster; firstly and foremost for yourself.

“contaminating OLO with your profanities and with an arrogance . . blah ”

So I guess you are dissenting to my view?

Good job one of us still supports freedom of speech!

“Though I understood that the "Motherland" had ceased granting cheap passage to its trash to rid them to the colonies.”

Australia ceased to be a colony in 1901. I paid for my airfare in1983, after proving I had skills in demand, proper understanding of English and monetary resources so as not to be a drain on the Australia, before I arrived.

What accident of fate resulted in you being here?

Sue64 what types?

Thank you Yabbie and Dickie for the welcome. My appologies to Dickie for not posting a link, I have never responded to an article before and it was not my intention to break protocal, and do not think there is a link that covers my objection to the ridiculous content of said article. But since Dickies posting has some good points I will make a short attempt to relate my views. I do believe that we are experiencing some level of climate change. But as for the delivery of that message I have no regard. 1) Al Gore would not know the difference between a test tube and a bunson burner and should not speak about things he dos not know. 2) I have not heard anything from this "concensous" of scientists that is not over hyped or sensationalized. 3) There is also a wide scientific community that is dubious of the science that the "consencous" scientists have put forth. 4) The UN (which is a worthless organization) has attempted to put out the Kyoto accord and more recently something from Bali last fall (incedently it is the authoritarian regeme that our author wants) that really contained no solutions, but instead was aimed at the US economy and left virtually un addressed the economies of China and India which both produce enormous amounts of polution.5) When they address the problem and put forth equal enforcement for all countries ( which the UN is powerless to enforce)then I will listen. 6) When I hear from scientists discuss this issue with represenatives from both sides the have genuinly intelligent science, then I will listen. TICK

Well what people like Dickie do, is simply blame those "evil
corporations", when they are responding to consumer needs and
wants, which is what drives the market.

Consumers are free to install solar hot water systems rather
then electric, most don't. Consumers are free to buy smaller,
more efficient cars, I notice that V8 sales are still
healthy. Consumers are free to cancel that holiday trip
overseas, clearly they are not, or Qantas, Emirates etc,
would not be buying more and more new aircraft.

Just to wave the big finger at those "evil corporations"
is rather simplistic and lacking in undersanding.

As to Kyoto, in its present form, we could simply close
down our aluminium smelters, shift them all to China
or India and re employ the people who lose their jobs
elsewhere. Our compliance figures would improve dramatically,
it would shut up the squalking left as the figures would
look so much better, but in real terms nothing would really
be achieved, apart from shooting ourselves in the proverbial
foot. Never mind, rational arguments don't seem to
matter so much in this debate...