And if 12000 public servants should accidentally fall...

"""
TONY JONES: Not everyone agrees with you though. Greg Combet says that analysis by his department, the Department of Climate Change, shows the direct action policy would cost the average Australian household $720 per year.

JOE HOCKEY: Well this is the same Department of Climate Change that said there'd be a thousand companies that would pay the carbon tax, and then 24 hours later it'd be 500 companies.

It's the same Department of Climate Change that has been party to Treasury modelling where they've modelled the impact of their own carbon tax at $20 a tonne instead of $23 a tonne.

TONY JONES: But are you saying they're putting out false figures about your direct action plan?

JOE HOCKEY: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

TONY JONES: Well, would you be disbanding this department if it's a department that puts out false figures for political reasons? I mean, you are talking about getting rid of 12,000 civil servants.

JOE HOCKEY: Yeah. Well the Department of Climate Change will be pretty high up the list for very close scrutiny.

TONY JONES: You mean, you'll be thinking of disbanding it.

JOE HOCKEY: Yep.

"""

No wonder labour still has so many voters, they gave up trying to win the public's heart and just employed everyone!

This is a joke isn't it? Please tell me they're joking?

RM,

I've come across this website which presents
an analysis of all of the climate-change
policies of our political parties. It may
be of interest to people:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/08/04/finally-climate-policies-explained

RawMustard, Lexi

Here are a couple of bits & links.
The greens were never going to go lib so she could have hung out for a better deal. I prefer her to Tony tbo as a person still. I still recall what he did to Pauline. Like her or not that was uncalled for.
However, taking everything into account we have no choice now we need the libs back to once again pay off their bills and protect our most vulnerable & get this sorted & confidence back in business.

I would have hoped our first female PM might have lasted longer.
Shes much better than Rudd but difficult job and not much talents onboard . The biggest problem is still! alp state govs.

Enjoy the links goodnight to both of you Kerry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_310fs-1Es&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn9h5DoMAFw&NR=1

Raw Mustard it pleases me that not every one agrees with you.
In fact your raw heated and brick wall like defense of conservative thought is your right.
I saw the show, think much differently than you.
Truth may be some place between us both.
But your party took a cost on climate change to the 2007 election.

lets look at the pms's words on lateline

""What the Government has said
is that we will have a tender process
where we will say to coal-fired power stations,
[to the people who generate energy with the most emissions,]
"Come forward and offer a contract for closure."

that is direct action
a policy she wont accept tony doing

""We will go through a tender process
and then we will select what is the best value for money
to reduce emissions,""'

THATS TONIES POLICY
extensivly rubbished by mz pms

""and of course any closure process would have to happen over a period of time..so that we had energy security""

so in reality
it will keep running
closure will be on tic and a promise
BUT WITH GOVT GIVING direct action...ie govt bribes

""and certainty and we would have
a structural adjustment process..for any affected region.""

MORE BRIBES

""So we haven't picked a power station;""

STILL HER OWN WORDS..

""that isn't right."""

lol
she is making it up as she goes
read the whole spinrouteen
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3285862.htm

but back to topic
using the peoples own words stick

""Now I've said - precisely those words
that I've just said to you,""

the same words you told to murdock press
she refused to even deliniate..[see transcript]

""I've said that to concerned power workers
[in the Latrobe Valley..who work at Hazelwood]
and I'll say it to anybody..who asks me about our policy.""

ie we havnt 'picked who we will pay yet
but hey it might be you[sound familour]
policy on the run..while still insulting the opposition proposition
WHILE STILL REFUTING direct action..lol



""The problem with talking to the Opposition about all of this

is you'd need,Tony,
to tell me who I should speak to.""

huh?
lawyer speak
get over mentioning tony..[the other one]

""Should I speak to Andrew Robb,
who says that they want to close a power station""

you say he said red

""and in fact the Government's stolen their policy;""

bailing out the lowest tender ISNT direct action?

""or should I speak to Tony Abbott'"

no go listen to ruperts stooges,

""Who would you suggest I speak to, Tony,
given that they've got diametrically different views,
pursuing, as they do,..a different message for different audiences.""

the fukkus group said
*they..needed to hear her say this.

""*They never say the same thing twice,
*they just say what *they think people want to hear
and then hope *they don't get caught out on the contradictions.""

who is '*they' juliar
its as if your so pure you alone got no sin/spin
only the blind loyalists would believe your white as driven snow

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3285862.htm

TONY JONES: Well, would you be disbanding this department if it's a department that puts out false figures for political reasons? I mean, you are talking about getting rid of 12,000 civil servants.

Is Jones wrong? How in the hell could this depaertment have 12000 staff. If Jones is not wrong, then it should be axed, what do they fill their time in at?

The climate may change in natures own good time and there 'aint nothin' we can do about it. We dont influence any change. It has always changed and always will. Carbon tax is a sham.

Axe this department and you have a budget surplus straight away.

Banjo

Its called jobs for the boys dear Banjo- If I get time I will come in and tell you how all this started.
The stories of the so called scientists who for the life of them even for their well paid jobs could keep a straight face when interviewed about sticking tubs up cattle's @. Of course my objection was / is animal cruelty. Yep sake em and you have got a surplus.
A group in SA sold off mines and brought ag & travelled world wide to form this company. Its a long story but goes a bit like the committee of 500. I was going to shut my mouth for the sake of the bill to ban live exports but as this government is so good at back flips are are not supporting it..

Gawd wouldnt you reckon they would be smart enough to know the others are going with Tony and keep their promise to the other 50 % of Aussies
Nope p both sides off again-- stupid.

Ok well leave it with you. I am spending too much time in biz hours here naughty

Dear Banjo,

The Department of Climate Change does not
have 12,000 employees. What Mr Hockey was
talking about was their election promise
to cut the public service numbers in total.
The Department of Climate Change would be
on top of their hit list. The 12,000 refers
to the public service as a whole.

However here's another suggestion:

Why not get rid of our politicians?
They're salaries are four times (or more) of
what public servants get paid. And public
servants actually do the work. (No, I'm not one).
Besides Pollies cost us in the millions on their
retirement as well (for life).

We could bring the budget back into surplus
straight away - as another poster pointed out.

RW it reminds me of the old joke when Jeff Kennett became Premier here in Victoria

Question "Define an Optimist"

Answer "A Victorian Public Servant who washes and Irons five shirts on a sunday night, ready for 5 days employment in the coming week"

Chain saw sales will rocket when the lying socialists are kicked out and into with wilderness, along wiht their watermelon mates and the independent "dead men walking" which hold the balance of power in this federal government of incompetence...

Everyway they turn there is another abyss for Gillard to fall into... and when she hits bottom someone should tell her -

try climbing the walls

and stop trying to dig your way out

but asking a socialist to "climb" and aspire to anything is, as we all know, an impossiblity

Lexi,
You may be right, but my comprehension is not too bad, Jones refered only to one department! He should be clearer in what he says.

I can see an overall reduction of 12000 in the public service and, if I recall correctly, there was a massive staff reduction when the libs got in, in 1996.

Political appointments would be the first to go. Like the boss of the company said. I didn't know who had to go, so I went through the car park and marked down all that had KEVIN 07 bumper stickers. After all they wanted him!

Dear Banjo,

The information is available on the web.
Just do a bit of research. I'm leaving
right now for a Meeting - otherwise I'd
provide you with the site. Anyway talk
to you soon.

Cheers.

The Department of Climate Change Annual Report does not appear to show how many employees although it may be in the financial section if anyone has the time to wade through the documents here:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/accountability/annual-reports/annual-report-0910/financial-summary.aspx

Although there was this point on the first page of the link above:

"-expenses of $141.6 million—the majority of which reflect payments to suppliers ($67.7 million) and employees ($67.4 million) "

$67.4 million expenditure on employees does seem an absurd amount of money for a small portfolio even if the role extends to energy efficiencies.

Almost the same amount for suppliers which could be anything from paper clips to consultancies, facilities management etc.

Who will be first.
First to stop denigrating the other side of politics and those who support them.
Surely it is a worth while target.
Or are we all to drift in to the type of posts Col puts here.
Why are some ok, some not, why can us Lefty's become Socialist dregs, but Conservatives not?
Yes Hockey said that department would be first, but the 12.000 was always a target in total.
To be honest I am not sure I disagree with him, I do not share his views on climate change, at least the ones he says he holds today.
Like his party he has held opposing views.
But some one,maybe less? has to do the job, some one who can be trusted with our country's money and secretes.
Col may think we should contract the work out to the Chinese embassy maybe?
We could get the Walt Disney foundation to run treasury bring Scrooge Mac Ducks money bin.

LOL! Col, Love ya style :)

And, belly. Scrooge Mac Duck would do a far better job than the goose that's running it now!

""
Lexi Said:
Why not get rid of our politicians?
"""

Yes, yes!
Pictures of swine feeding at a trough come to mind, I can even hear their grunts. Time to make Bacon!

Belly “First to stop denigrating the other side of politics and those who support them.”

Well -

We know it will not be you, Belly….

Whining on and complaining about my posts to all-n-sundry

Example “Col may think we should contract the work out to the Chinese embassy maybe”

I see you like to indulge in false predictions of what I might say

- I never do that to you....

and I do find you most insulting you by implication, lowering my thought processes to the best you can offer

I suppose you think it gives you greater (or maybe just some) ”credibility” by shouting opinions about what I am supposed to be thinking

Belly, doyen of the dozy league of socialists meddlers, I would not suggest outsourcing to China in a fit

What I would suggest is something which is way above your comprehension

I would suggest

The taxes spent on bureaucratic parasites – the jobs for the boys of the socialist and watermelon party machines and doubtless including the odd rent boy

Those taxes should not go to China

They should not be collected in the first place

They should have been left in the pockets of those people who earned the money, for them to decide how they want to spend it in the real economy and

not forced to pay for the fantasy “green” economy of wind farms and 17th century French peasants, which Gillard and her crooked cronies want to force on the real people in the real economy

RawMustard pleased you approve.. stick around, like a fine wine, I only get better with time

Unfortunately Belly is more your “Beaujolais Nouveau ” (no shelf life at all)

You know socialist politics were aptly described by George Orwell (maybe his own admission of guilt)

Whilst your vision of swine lends something from Animal Farm, I still feel socialists lean more prominently to 1984 as a solution to everything

I feel, as a Libertarian Capitalist, I owe much to G.O. and his graphic descriptions to the dangers of collectivism

"socialism" - a recipe for poverty

Belly,
I am denigrating Tony Jones because he did not say what he meant.

If you think I was denigrating Labor, then you are admitting that Jones is on your team. Many people say the ABC is biased.

Yes I would axe the Dept of CC and not even pay redundentcies. I would palm them off to other Depts and simply not replace the ones that resign. Such a large staff would turn over quite a few. 12000 would not take long to achieve overall.

One useless Dept gone and saving about $7 million a week, beauty!

...Carbon Tax booklet arrives on door step…Zip, straight into bin…I’ve already decided! F# clowns, sack the lot except centrelink, I wanna be paid….

Banjo- "I would palm them off to other Depts and simply not replace the ones that resign"

problem with your suggestion

since the CC civil servants were pointless and useless in the first place,

what are they going to be fit to do in other departments anyway?

for instance if they go to treasury....

at present treasurey have enough people making up bogus figures, they do not need more.

I suppose we could get them counting money -

then that assumes they can count and they are not allergic to touching dirty cash which someone in the real world sweated to earn in the first place

Health would be a no no, CC has the economic capacity of "the kiss of death".... so keep em away from where real peoples lives are at risk.

Defense ....

maybe you are right after all...

it might work....

the soldiers in Afghanistan could find use for 12000 human shields and on the bright side, we would not have to pay them for very long in that role not bother with repatriation back to Aus....

Yes, it could work... it really could..... :-)

Banjo! not even thinking of you.
But have a Captain Cook at the posts around you.
Tell me how are those contributions other than verbal graffiti and vandalism?
Aussie ocker need to sling mud at one another does not work in printed form.
JUST THIS consider Cols thought public servants should be used as human Shields in a war zone.
Is that comment Satire, humor, truly held view, intelligent, or just a badly written tag on the run on a verbal graffiti wall in need of repainting?
I need you Banjo in the boat people thread!

Col,
Public servants commonly transfer from one Dept to another. It makes little difference to a typist, filing clerk or other office worker which Dept they work in, (fill their time in). Few would be specialist in a sham Dept like climate change.

I'm not sure just how many employees the government has but with the normal turnover of staff the 12000 reduction could easily be achieved by natural attricion.

I thought you would welcome the axing of a Dept and the saving of the wage bill for 12000 staff. Accountants thrive on that sort of stuff.

Belly,
Glad you wern't including me. But the present incompedents only have themselves to blame for the critisism. I have a list of major stuff ups which I will remind people of at the next election. Its the least I can do for my country.

Don't worry, I will keep on with my opposition to the illegal boat people. I hope the Malaysia deal stops them coming, but time will tell

Banjo

*Its the least I can do for my country. Don't worry, I will keep on with my opposition to the illegal boat people. I hope the Malaysia deal stops them coming, but time will tell.*

Its so refreshing to see somebody saying those words- its the least I can do for my country!

No backing this political party- or the other.

Just thinking of Australia first and that’s what we need to see more of.

Thank you have made my day !

Col,

You did say like a good wine you only get better with age- wicked sense of humor :)

Hi Banjo “I thought you would welcome the axing of a Dept and the saving of the wage bill for 12000 staff. Accountants thrive on that sort of stuff.”

I would welcome it as an accountant but that is not my primary driver

I welcome it as a tax payer

I welcome it as a statement of ripping down the false idols erected by the zealots of environazism and watermelons

I welcome it as avoiding a complete waste of money and relieving the ordinary citizen of tomes of pointless regulation which the Dept of CC would inevitably produce.

I would welcome it because of one thing which dearest Margaret is accredited with saying

"Yet the basic fact remains: every regulation represents a restriction of liberty, every regulation has a cost. That is why, like marriage (in the Prayer Book's words), regulation should not 'be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly'

I will always support freedom over regulation, especially the bad sort of regulation which socialists "wantonly" gratify themselves with

Kerryanne “wicked sense of humor”

Oh the humour is only a clue to the real McCoy

But that is for my wife to know (she is my match and equally wicked) and everyone else to speculate :-)

Dear Banjo,

Seeing as you genuinely seem to be interested in facts.
This is for your information.

1) Joe Hockey, the Shadow Treasurer, announced on
ABC TV'S Lateline that a Coalition government
would abolish the Department of Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency.

2) According to the Parliamentary Library this means
he would scrap the Climate Change Department, sacking
more than 1000 public sector employees.

3) This is an unjustified attack on public servants from
a Shadow Treaserur whose knee-jerk response to advice
about problems with his policy is to threaten the
public service.

4) It opens up a new hole in Mr Abbott's discredited
subsidies-for-polluters policy.

5) Under the policy the Coalition says it will conduct
a tender-based grants scheme to award subsidies to
polluters who promise to clean up their acts.

6) But with NO Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficience, the Coalition would have no public
servants to draw up grant guidelines, to administer the
tender process, to negotiate grant agreements and
contracts and to monitor whether the polluters were
fulfilling their obligations.

7) Direct Action would be a giant, no-strings-attached,
handout scheme for big polluters with Tony Abbott and
Joe Hockey personally selecting firms to be rewarded
with billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies that
will cost households $720 more in taxes.

Mr Abbott and Joe Hockey are keeping up their mindlessly
negative scare campaign.

Lexi,
That is all good stuff. I could not think of a better way of saving taxpayers money than by axing a useless Dept. Except by denying the illegal boat people permanent residence, thus taking away the reason for them to come here.

Frankly, I think the Opposition should just declare that climate change is a non-issue and leave it at that. If they spend time and money on it, that will also be waste and uncalled for.

When, and only when, it is proven that man is responsible for any change in the climate should we consider any action. There are many things we have no influence over and climate is most likely one. To think the little bit of CO2 we produce has an effect on climate is ridiculous.

Here is some info I came across, about the Dept of Climate Change. Happy to see it go.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/department-of-hot-air-costing-90-million/story-e6freuy9-1225859616207

Dear Banjo,

It is a shame that the ver moderate attempt by the
Government to do something about this issue has become so
politicised.

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/25/ends-political-incorrectness

This should serve as a warning to us all.

BTW: on the subject of climate change the following explains the various policies:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/08/04/finally-climate-policies-explained

Banjo,

Thank you for posting that link & that wont be all the costs exposed either. I am outraged . My disgust is absolute.

Dear Lexi, said

3) *This is an unjustified attack on public servants from
a Shadow Treaserur whose knee-jerk response to advice
about problems with his policy is to threaten the
public service.*

It is an unjustified attack but not on public servants.

What are public servants anyway to you?

Can you pls explain this- What is it with alp supporters.

Is it being involved in something. The sense of beloning?

This is why indeed motor bike clubs are formed & a big fight to wear the colors & so on. For the life of me whats happened to labor Lexi?

Why are you & yours not out there *screaming about the man who has been denied the drugs to keep him alive to look after his kids while $ are spent on this . We are heading for a depression - can you not see that? I am of no party- well thats not quite true actually. I just remembered I joined the very new Animal Justice Party. But still this is wasted at a time we cant afford to waste a $. We are borrowing 135B a day Lexi- do you understand this.?
I am not trying to offend you - I really am totally frustrated.

Dear Kerryanne,

A bit of advice.

Always argue in a logical manner.
Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable
generalisations every time. Don't appear
to be arguing on an emotional level -
but a mature, intelligent one.
Whether you encounter a
disagreement at home, work, a pub, at a party,
or on the web -
remember to think before you speak/post. No-one
likes or supports an abusive, illogical or weak
debater.

Cheers.

Kerryanne,
Your disgust should be greater. If Lexi is correct in that there are now a 1000 staff in the Dept of CC, then the cost of running the show are at least double that quoted in the Tele article, which was written in 2010.

Aside from the fiddling of figures by leading scientists there are continued little snippets of info coming up which cast doubt on the accuracy of the models used by the scientists, see below.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

For those that do not want to read through this doc, this is the nuts and bolts of it.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

In other words, NASA is saying that mother nature provides an Air conditioner for earth,that switches on when required. Who've thunk it!

Lexi,
For years it has been the government and the warmists like Gore and Flannery that have been running the scare campaign and now 'climategate' changed all that as most people no longer 'believe'.
Flannery reckoned that sea levels were going to rise to cover 8 storey buildings and Brown blamed global warming on the Vic fires. I recall Rudd blaming a couple of hot days in Adelaide on global warming. He was going to claim, in Copenhagen, that "Australia was leading the world with his ETS". Glad Abbott put a stop to that.

More and more people are becoming sceptical, and rightly so.

Banjo,

Yes its very clear Lexi doesn't want to answer the questions put to her. I have been aware for a long time about the GW scam but tbo thought well the money will be needed to get us out of debt after another ALP budget. Kevin never liked the heat Banjo & you have seen him run when dumped with evidence on AWB but that is another story.

ALP have paid lip service to the greens bill and nothing else.
We have inquires atm being headed by people that ought to be answering to a royal commission & not all alp either .

I suppose I should do the right thing & go back and dig up the evidence of the company that dreamed this up. Actually they sold some mining shares and said the future was in agriculture & carbon tax. I remember the old days with my dad when at least alp stood for poorer and working class family's.

They seem to have lost it & bugger the oldies the people needing medication just to stay alive.

I think Tony Abbott will be elected but at the end of the day Banjo
its humane nature that will destroy this great country.

I will say one thing Gillard with a better team may have been ok.
Shes lacking the experience which is why she agreed to the carbon tax. We all know the greens were never going to do a deal with the libs. The tactics used as common practise by alp are indeed gutter tactics. As I said my disgust is absolute & anybody silly enough to believe all that garbage should not be excused just because there a few sheep short i the paddock.

Cheers Banjo

PS Thanks for that link earlier very handy

Dear Banjo,

Whether you believe in climate change or not not is
a personal matter. The fact remains that after decades of
carelessly dumping noxious gases and particulars into the
atmosphere, most of the industrialised societies are now
enforcing clean-air standards, and air quality in these
societies is generally much better than at any time in the
past years. In the US, for example, auto-emission controls
have reduced the amount of carbon monoxide in the air by
40 percent since 1970. But clear air is a relative matter,
and vast amounts of pollution from American manufacturing,
power generation, waste incineration, and transport still reach
the skies each year, including more than 3 billion pounds
of some thirty-six chemicals suspected of causing cancer and
other chronic elements.

In the less developed countries there are
few controls on air-pollution, and as
these nations industrialise, they are
steadily increasing the sum total of planetary pollution.

This and other atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable
outcome of industrial technology,
it derives also from political decisions
to tolerate pollution rather than bear the costs -
probably including slower economic growth - by limiting it.
The US has some of the world's most stringent anti-pollution
laws, but these are clearly insufficient to prevent potential
grave damage to the atmosphere. Further control of pollution
is politically difficult, however, for the economic interests
behind "smokestack" industries are a powerful political lobby
that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the
task. We at least have a government that is trying to do something
moderate about the problem.

Dear Kerryanne,

I usually try to answer people's questions. What I do ignore
however is rants. There is a difference between the two.

Excellent points.

What does not go into the atmosphere winds up in our oceans:

"When we spew carbon dioxide into our air, it eventually ends up in our oceans, too — absorbed to the tune of about 22 million tons per day. This results in global warming’s evil twin: ocean acidification.

As oceans absorb carbon dioxide, or CO2, seawater chemistry changes and the water becomes more acidic. According to scientists, the oceans have become about 30 percent more acidic due to human CO2 emissions, and this spells trouble for ocean life. First of all, ocean acidification depletes seawater of the compounds that organisms need to build shells and skeletons, impairing the ability of corals, crabs, seastars, sea urchins, plankton and other marine creatures to build the protective armor they need to survive. To make matters worse, fish and other ocean organisms may be adversely affected from the rise in acidity in their ocean habitat. Fish are common ocean prey, and plankton are at the base of the ocean food chain, so when these animals suffer, so do the countless animals that eat them. Ocean acidification could disrupt the entire marine ecosystem."

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_acidification/

"What is ocean acidification? What is causing it?

The ocean absorbs approximately 1/3rd of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. However, this valuable service comes at a steep ecological cost - the acidification of the ocean. As CO2 dissolves in seawater, the pH of the water decreases, which is called "acidification".

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean pH has dropped globally by approximately 0.1 pH units."

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/FAQacidity.html

We need to stop arguing about global warming and get on with cleaning up our act. We can see what is happening to our environment. Only those with vested interests in maintaining business as usual are arguing against observable evidence.

As Tony Windsor stated:

"There should be substantive debates on substantive issues,
not just slogans and one-liners and abuse on the airwaves.
If we construe this debate narrowly (in terms of fuel prices,
and electricity bills et cetera), rather than in ways
we may adjust our patterns of consumption we will miss on
opportunity to adjust to a low carbon future.

We will be trapped in an absolete and uncompetitive economy
and we will still be paying high prices for fuel and
electricity!"

Ammonite "We need to stop arguing about global warming and get on with cleaning up our act. "

Ammonite I suggest you stop pretending you make decisions for anyone else and

stop telling everyone else what they have to do

I am not convinced AGW is "real" in the first place, especially when the "Anthropogenic" component is a tiny contributor to overall CO2 generation.

Just as you are convinced of the dangers of AGW

I am, likewise, convinced that AGW is a politically motivated hoax

I further believe the earth to be an integrated, self-compensating system of incredible complexity, which the scientists, who seek funding from claims of dire AGW, do not understand.

So we will continue to argue because

Your "theory" does not hang together and

lets face it, from your post it is clear, you simply refuse to listen to a dissenting opinion, aka "the voice of reason"

and as for me cleaning up my "Act"

you are not authorised to judge it any more than I am authorised to judge yours.

Better you just tend your own back yard, as I tend mine.... and on that topic: I must say, the orchids and citrus are doing very well at present but we are open to suggestions on promoting fruiting for the avocadoes

Ammonite please do not expect anyone with a brain to be impressed by propaganda. Most of us stop reading when we encounter much spin. Something which is mostly spin doesn't got far at all.

If you like reinforcing your preferences with this stuff, go for it, but, please, don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.

Dear Hasbeen,

As I understand it - the point that Ammonite was
making - was that we should be looking at ways we may
adjust our patterns of consumption
( i.e. clean up our acts),
so that we could adjust to a low carbon future.

Now you may
not agree with climate change et cetera, but most people
can see that there are problems associated with
industrialisation, rapid population increases, and
endless expansion in people's material desires.

The most
technologically advanced societies are now digging ever
deeper into the planetary environment for the raw materials
and energy they need to fuel their economic development.
And if this same voracious pattern persists in the future
in other industrialising societies, an expanding demand may
well exceed the planet's finite resources.

As Mt Windsor pointed out -
"There should be substantive debates on substantive
issues, not just slogans and one-liners and abuse on
the air-waves... if we construe this debate narrowly..."

Well you know the rest.

Dear Lexi

It was a very simply question. What has happened to ALP .

They used to be involved with helping working class and poor family's.

Now this government has removed medication to save peoples lives that those people can not afford but all alp members seem to care about is the carbon tax.

Why?

Dear Kerryanne,

Why are you asking me about what has happened
to the ALP? I'm not a member of that
particular party. All you have to do is go
to their web page and read up on their policies.
As far as I'm aware their policies on health,
aging, and other subjects are listed there for
anyone to find. And as far as only talking
about the carbon-tax. I think you've got them
confused with the Opposition's politicising
that particular issue. The ALP has many policies
on a variety of issues. The Opposition seems to have
only one issue - except for now - that the refugee
problem has come into play of course.

Cheers.

Lexi, I have no problem with the idea of reducing consumption. Remember I lived for some years using less than 7 Lbs of gas, & a couple of gallons of diesel or petrol a month.

What I do object to is this misinformation, quasi science, when they claim an extremely minor reduction in the alkalinity of the ocean is acidification.

This type of spin not only dose not convince any thinking person, for many it is a total turn off. The quickest way to get me to ignore you is to lie to me.

Even if I did agree with their objective, I will not conspire with liars.

Yes I know the global warming crowd are desperate. They see the train is running out of gravy, but this rubbish just confirms that they have no regard for the truth, & probably never have had.

Dear Hasbeen,

That's the problem with this topic - there are
so many opinions out there from the Lord Monckton's,
Alan Jones's, to Australia's top scientists and first
class scientific organisations like CSIRO. Best to check
the credentials of who's providing the information
you're looking at, as well as who's paying them to
speak out and why. There are a few agendas out there
as well as the real sciencess and the pseudo-sciences.
The problem lies in the fact that few people really
understand much about the topic and most tend to go
with their political leanings anyway.

Lexi "There are a few agendas out there as well as the real sciencess and the pseudo-sciences"

At lest we agree on that

most of the environazi movement was infiltrated by and is now run with Trotskyites, from the time they saw the collapse of USSR on the horizon...

hence more collectivist policies and a demand to limit individual discretion (like grabbing more money by means of a Carbon Tax to hand back to the proletariat, at the discretion of the "central committee")

Like Lenin said "A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation"

AGW is merely the revolutionary situation

and the genuine people who are in it for moral reasons these days are again as Lenin described "Useful Idiots"

Dear Col Rouge,

While I appreciate your response to my post
with - "environazi movement," Trotskyites,
and Lenin quotes - how about commenting on
the topic under discussion. Joe Hockey's
comments?

Lexi I am pleased you appreciate the pernicious role of trotskyites and hard line communists in the manipulation of the environment movement. It was a soft target, being a rally point for so many "useful idiots".

re "how about commenting on
the topic under discussion. Joe Hockey's
comments?"

Sure

I consider Joe's suggestion, of cancelling the entire department, shutting it down and saving tax payers from paying pointless taxes and avoiding socialist meddling with the income differentials generated from effective activity versus ineffective activity and indolence, a wholly valid and moral strategy

We don't need it

Therefore we should not pretend an extra 12000 civil servants swanning around costing tax payers money, devoted to perpetrating a fraud, is going to help solve any real problems

and since most of those public servants are stupid enough to actually believe the lie of AGW, I consider paying them to be a lie is a complete waste of tax payers funds.

The world is such a better place with "small government" rather than "big government"...

It keeps the "Power" devolved and beyond the dangerous hands of the scum which floats to the top of centralist controlled political organisation.

In short,

Libertarian capitalism is the natural and superior method of human organisation

Would you like me to explain anything else about Joes comment - but I think that what I said should be clear enough for even you to comprehend....

Lexi at first glance it would appear silence is not an answer to such a post as the one above me.
However it may be the only defense.
We know, you, I many, the subject is a heated and disputed one,all over the world.
But I suspect you, as I do, know that post is unrepresentative of most .
It has the smell, touch, feel, of an attempt to troll, to get a reaction.
You and I others too, have observed strange events seemingly challenging the open discussion of some subjects.
This may not be trolling, it may in fact be the mixed and mashed thoughts of one, not capable of balanced thought.
I prefer the troll, it is a better out come.
A tactic? if we refuse to involve our selves in some subjects, some posters, in time the BALANCE some want will be seen for what it has become.
The very idea over half the worlds science people are lying, Communists, Socialist, Let us remember we have the Intellect to post here without falling victim to assaults on free speech.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dear Col,

The Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey announced on ABC TV's
Lateline program that a Coalition government would
abolish the Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency. Now we know that the Opposition Leader
Tony Abbott is sceptical about the advice of Australia's
top scientists (CSIRO et al) on the risks of climate
change and rejects the advice of economists on how to
reduce carbon pollution at the lowest cost to the economy.
Now his Shadow Treasurer has revealed that he would scrap
the Climate Change Department, sacking more than 1000
public sector employees (stats obtained from the Parliamentary
Library). The 12,000 figure will come later - with further
cuts in other areas.

This opens up a new hole in Mr Abbott's subsidies-for-polluters
policy. Under the policy the Coalition says it will conduct
a tender-based grants scheme to award subsidies to polluters to
clean up their acts.

However, with no Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency,
the Coalition would have no public servants
to draw up grant guidelines,
to administer the tender process,
to negotiate grant agreements and contracts
and to monitor whether the polluters were
fulfilling their obligations.

Direct Action would be a giant, no-strings-attached, handout
scheme for big polluters with Mr Abbott and Joe Hockey personally
selecting firms to be rewarded with billions in taxpayer-funded
subsidies that will cost households $720 more in taxes.

I note and ignore Col Rouge post above.
But in that post it is said, an inference? that site moderator has at sometime reported to Col that I reported him.
And that no action has taken place as a result.
This question has to be asked,yes last night,after twice in print asking for a truce between myself and Col.
And at yet another threat from another poster, one of tens maybe hundreds over a long history.
I asked the moderator for a ruling.
Unless[ and I can not remember] I asked some time ago for intervention in a dispute with Shadow Minister it was the first for a long time.
The level of abuse/near hate/rudeness/ and bias is growing.
Can it truly be? that this Australian Labor Government, its supporters, as so bad so awful so not apart of Australian mainstream politics.
That we are seen as fair game?
How is this country's future looking if the incoming conservative government, and it comes can not take the same brand of negative feedback given to all the above.
Graham With nothing but respect if you consider me a threat a bully or nearly half as biased as some contributors here of late tell me and I go forever.
But if not? I reserve then the right to be as rude and unfocused as Col Rouge KerryAnne and just a couple more.
Is voting Labor unaustralian?

"""
The level of abuse/near hate/rudeness/ and bias is growing.
"""

You proclivity to labour despite their disgusting contempt for the Australian public is breathtaking. It is for this very reason I ignore most of your posts. It is blinding you to the damage this incompetent bunch of socialist ninkumpoops is doing to everyday Aussie battlers!

In my world view, you have a right to your views and a right to voice them in public and I would fight to the death for you to retain those rights; however, unlike libertarians, you do your best to take away that right from others. unfortunately it is a trait of the left they will never shake, so don't be surprised when a libertarian attacks your contemptible feelings toward them!

Your beloved prime minister is a classic example of this. look at here and you'd see yourself in the mirror!

"""
Is voting Labor unaustralian?
"""

At the moment you'd have to be a ninkumpoop to ask this question!

The answer is a most resounding yes!

RM,

Where is your evidence, apart from anecdotal that
the Labor Party is unAustralian? Or even entirely
"socialist?"

Sweeping statements
like those contribute little that's of any substance
in a discussion - and bandying phrases like "socialist,"
around is not accurate either. Both parties Labor and
Liberal - are made up of a variety of differing people,
who vote one way or another for a variety of personal
reasons. That is a choice that we're privileged to have
in this wonderful country of ours. It's one thing to
think you're on the right path - but quite another to
think that yours is the only path - that smacks of
totalitarianism - which is in fact - "unAustralian."

"""
Where is your evidence, apart from anecdotal that
the Labor Party is unAustralian? Or even entirely
"socialist?"
""""

Witness the masters of spin that are the left!

Where did I say the labour party was unAustralian?
Where did I say the labour party are entirely socialist?

Go back and re read what I wrote and then ask me a valid question and I'll attempt to answer it for you, no spin attached!

Only one blinded by their proclivity to labour cannot see their socialist values and their refusal to allow a vote on an issue that is ruining this country by the day! It's time for the true Australian labour members that value democracy and Australian values to cross the floor and end this nightmare that is the current government!

RM,

You say, "Notice the masters of spin...?"

And then you proceed with your spin.
Gotta laugh.
Firstly you imply others are to blame,
"master of spin..."
then you deny - "I didn't say that!"

Actually you did say it. Re-read your own
post. You stated, "socialist ninkumpoops."

And in reply to Belly's question, "Is voting Labor
unAustralian?"

Your reply was: "At the moment you'd have to
be a ninkumpoop to ask this question.
The answer is a most resounding yes!"

As we all know, the world is divided into two
categories: Other people and Us.

Is it just me, but every time I see this headline, I can't help seeing 12000 public servants lined up on a wall, as are targets in a shooting gallery.

Each time I can't help thinking that this would make an excellent army training ground.

Makes me almost believe that we may still find some worthwhile use for public servants.

Lexi it just is not worth it!
Believe me it is not.
Those two posts are Representative, of a problem.
When did you last see an intervention it to such talk here.
You have seen interventions because it was felt Lefty's have slandered conservatives but show me a public dressing down for the growing dreadful things being said by the right.
12.000 public servants for target practice, another says send them to Afghanistan for human Shields?
And at the present ALP voters are unAustralian.
leave it my Friend.
I await my marching orders if given I go, most sad that here in Australia's best forum free speech is not for every one.
The Australian Government, any Government, would be monitoring all such sites all over the world.
They just have to do so, Norway proves behind the hate some just well mean what they say.
Do not confront them Lexi let the spite run free it then will be defeated by its own hand.

Ah Hasbeen,
I just loved your last post on this subject, I too conjured up a similar vision of all of these public service people. I really think that too many are employed to do the necessary tasks. In the private sector you find half the staff numbers to do some similar jobs of the Public servants.
NSB

Hi Belly,
You are quite right to advise Lexi to 'Leave It', I don't know who this Col Rouge is, but he seems to deny the rights of different thinking voters, seeing that 'his way is best', so today Col Rouge, whosoever you might be, I reserve my right as an Australian to vote for whomever I like, if that party lets me down, then I will vote against them at the next election, that, my friend is called Democracy, you should try practicing it your self.

NSB

Dear Hasbeen,

Aren't politicians "public servants?"

Look at their salaries - four times (at least)
the amount that others are paid - as well as
what else they receive for the rest of their
lives - why aren't we looking at what we can
do about this situation?

No argument there Lexi, I'm sure I didn't limit the choice of public servants to use.

I do think, however we should start with all the judges of the high & above courts, & any legal officers employed by the departments.

You should approve, they all get more than any of the pollies.

If we had them face away, & only used buck shot, or saltpeter, we would be able to wash them off, & reuse them for months, & they'd be getting a good kick just where most of them need it.

Dear Belly,

Thank You for your advice.
I'll think about it.

I still feel that basically we should be able to
get along. We can all have different points of view.
And still be civil to each other. Quite frankly, I
remember the best debates I used to enjoy witnessing
in the past were ones where people were equally matched in
intelligence, wit, and reasoning. They were from
different points of view - but my goodness it was
exciting to listen to them battle it out by their
wits without resorting to slanging matches, labels, or
insults. Robust discussions are great. But trying to
be deliberately offensive beggars the question - why?
As Noisy pointed out - people change their minds about
who they vote for all the time. They select who they
think have the best policies at the time of voting.
And their choice of who they support -
is just that - their choice. This doesn't
meam they deserve to have labels assigned to them.
Or be called names for making that choice. Of course
there are those who vote strickly on party lines. That
too is a matter of choice. The same should apply.
It's only politics.

Dear Hasbeen,

Lovely sense of humour.

That's more like it!

[Deleted for discussing specific moderation decisions on the thread.]

Lexi, all, I too remember those days but not with rose colored glasses.
Politics has always been rough those, but we did debate each other.
I understand, based on much more than media reports what went wrong.
Kevin Rudd, so very full of promise, he in 2007 did a John Howard.
He bought Liberal voters with him.
In the end he manufactured his own WORK CHOICES and again copied Howard.
He and only he, did that turned our hopes in to a bursting water filled balloon.
Behind him stood not just Australia's First female Prime minister, but the Julia Gillard I always knew would fail.
Look at her history, forget the left wing Lawyer, she shed that decades ago.
See her close roll in the Simon Crean Mark Latham debacles, see today a man unfit to be in the house.
Fitzgibbon, remember his trips paid for by China and gifts, but never forget he, like Gillard sat at the feet of another empty balloon Latham.
Today.midst a plan to reform my party the ALP, factions/self interest/ It is my party groups!
Yes apparent owners of my lifetime movement, having installed a leader who can not ever win, want first not to say, I was wrong.
So while Shorten/Combet/even a returned and chastened Rudd could do better we, are ruled not by Gillard but self interest within the ALP.
We once proud of our mateship are growing apart, some are going far too far in debate,seemingly a conservative can go that little bit further than us filth the left.
Continued

The ALP government can not be re elected.
Some will talk to me of a wise electorate not being fooled, no such electorate ever existed in any country.
Except our fate.
So what now for Labor, not all doom and gloom.
NSW fell at the hands of truth filth/fools/self interest and factions.
After our scheduled train wreck, we can look back then and see this party, inhabiting the ground once the property of Sir Robert Menzies, even in part John Howard failed for many reasons.
It failed to sell its wins, it was brave enough to internally settle old scores with Rudd.
But too COWARDLY to consider telling the voters why.
It looks,and well it may,at true deception rag tag policy's and actions from the opposition, but thinks with out basis the average Aussie knows this.
Labor will rebuilt on the soil it must, the grave yard of once Liberal policy.
And the new ground of innovation and change our ground always change comes from Labor
Its fall is driven by yesterdays Ghosts, the extreme left the moderate left Greens.
A dream has developed,The Alice in wounder land view that the minority left can drive our car.
Just get in the back shut the door and shut up.
New Labor,one day back in office after Abbott's two victory's the second a DD, will have cast of its fear of the loss of ten votes to the greens and understand they drive 30 to vote conservative.
Government with guts knows you just can not govern for minority's factions dreamers.
A leader brave enought to take the steering wheel and dump the passengers will be much loved.
continued.

Lexi in a post above spoke of former days here, I cast a doubt on some parts of those days.
We did handle debate much better, maybe I did not.
Before Rudd, we did not find as many reasons to differ.
Now? I under stand the anger, but sorry GY you know how much I love this place, I think a conservative gets more room to be rude here than one of us filthy left do.
I do not post in anger but find the thought, of lining 12.000 public servants,and I think they mostly vote conservative and are useless!
Up and shooting them?
Deporting Labor voters to Nehru, taxing us to death, being unaustralian for voting labor.
Are we a kinder garden yard full of kids?
KerryAnne I have to address,it is unwise but called for.
I have had a look last night at the yabby thread and the site in general, surely you pale, the animal welfare group there are not advancing your case.
I hope you get well.
I have had my talk with GY via e mail will continue to try , and continue to in my view see a freedom for some to behave badly.
After Conservatives take government, after Labor get sits bills past and falls,does any one think the standard of debate will improve.
A split in my country's unity has taken place.
I hope the better on both sides can one day heal it but promoting hate talk will not do it.
Belly
Proud to be an Australian Labor voter.
PS antiseptic if it ever gets to court I wish to be of help to you have given evidence in many and some one must stand with you, do not however be baited, that is a tactic.

Thanks Belly, but I don't think that will be necessary.

Dear Belly, re your post 'Labor should not be elected again'
Why not?, you seem to forget that we live in a healthy Democracy, just because you and others are dissatisfied, doesn't mean that the current Government should not be re-elected.
I personally wouldn't vote for Mr. Abbott, but that doesn't mean I make sweeping statements which might offend others who are Liberal/Other Party supporters. If I elect a certain Member who I think might do well, I will, if he/she doesn't come up to scratch, I will vote him/her out at the next election, that, I think is proper Democracy, it is not our right to tell others that they 'chose' the wrong person/party.
Cheers,
NSB

NSB

>> it is not our right to tell others that they 'chose' the wrong person/party. <<

What would Shadow Minister do then? The man clearly needs a hobby.