This place is heating up

Select to expand quote

actiomax said..
Holy that's sort of true but like everything if there's a way of making an illegal tax free dollar someone's into it .
It's why CFC is the second biggest smuggled item from Mexico into the USA .
But we should consider that all the old fridges & air conditioning units that rely on that should all be at the sort of end of there life expectancy & that problem should be slowly disappearing in the next few years the market should die off.

Sure yes. Did you know that CFC's were used in dozens of products including military? Not just fridges.

My point is, we should be tackling climate change with the same clarity of purpose as we did with the hole in the ozone layer. Action, when it's concerted, works and it doesn't cost much in the end. Thatcher and Reagan acted as leaders, unlike our current crop of useless snake oil salesmen.

Yes there are losers in the fossil fuel sectors - there's your cartel.

Proponents of nuclear think they have the solution - but that's another cartel....and linked to the military.

The fossil fuel and nuclear cartels hate renewables because everyone can plug in their own. From households, to small businesses to entire townships.

Cartels absolutely HATE the idea. Drives them livid. That's why they're so frantic to discredit renewable energy systems.

After repeated fires, my mother in law has now watched further stock losses and top soil wash away thanks to the recent rains. Speaking with her yesterday, she doesn't share your jovial announcement that 'it's OK'.

So, Tony, you're still too gutless to explain why you lie.

The expedition you referred to did NOT say there would be no ice. You lied when you claimed they did. You lied to try to win an internet discussion, which shows that you lie even for no real purpose. Your lies have also been noted, so you lied and still lost.

Why must you make it so obvious that you're so dishonest?


PS - your mummies lawn is not the whole country, therefore the fact that it rained on it does not show that the drought is over. It's not, as a look at a list of dam storage levels would show you. The fact that there is a country outside the suburbs no longer seems to enter the Libs' consciousness.

Maybe I'm too idealistic; it's frustrating to deal with the repeated lies and insults he and others spew out, and their dishonest attempts to dodge the reality. Surely all reasonable discussion relies on people at least trying to be truthful.

I found a new profile pic for you TA, the guy at the top

^^ Yep much better to accept that liars exist and will always exist. There's no point trying to understand them because they will ignore you and continue wrecking the planet until the last buck is made.

Their moral code is quite different to others.

Lying, is a powerful tactic to be deployed with repetitive consistency until it is accepted by the ignorant masses as a truth.

The same clique told us for decades smoking and asbestos were totally safe. Now they're trying to convince us that burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates is also safe.

In the USA, their band of greedy profiteers in the insurance game decide who lives and dies in their corrupt privately run ultra-expensive "health care system", which is more akin to a profiteering mafia cartel.

Honesty in their deeds, a concept of human ethics, morality, care for the sustainability of the planet is not a guiding principle in their lives.

Often they will cloak themselves in false piety in order to lend validity to their lies.

They have their own special code and it's quite simple - $$$ rules.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

holy guacamole said..
^^ Yep much better to accept that liars exist and will always exist. There's no point trying to understand them because they will ignore you and continue wrecking the planet until the last buck is made.

Their moral code is quite different to others.

Lying, is a powerful tactic to be deployed with repetitive consistency until it is accepted by the ignorant masses as a truth.

The same clique told us for decades smoking and asbestos were totally safe. Now they're trying to convince us that burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates is also safe.

In the USA, their band of greedy profiteers decide who lives and dies in their corrupt privately run ultra-expensive "health care system", which is more akin to a profiteering mafia cartel.

Honesty in their deeds, a concept of human ethics, morality, care for the sustainability of the planet is not a guiding principle in their lives.

They have their own special code and it's quite simple - $$$ rules.

Listen to yourself dude, sounds like you think you have the one true view of the world and all others are infidels

Only because you dont agree with him/her....

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

holy guacamole said..
^^ Yep much better to accept that liars exist and will always exist. There's no point trying to understand them because they will ignore you and continue wrecking the planet until the last buck is made.

Their moral code is quite different to others.

Lying, is a powerful tactic to be deployed with repetitive consistency until it is accepted by the ignorant masses as a truth.

The same clique told us for decades smoking and asbestos were totally safe. Now they're trying to convince us that burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates is also safe.

In the USA, their band of greedy profiteers decide who lives and dies in their corrupt privately run ultra-expensive "health care system", which is more akin to a profiteering mafia cartel.

Honesty in their deeds, a concept of human ethics, morality, care for the sustainability of the planet is not a guiding principle in their lives.

They have their own special code and it's quite simple - $$$ rules.

Listen to yourself dude, sounds like you think you have the one true view of the world and all others are infidels

Dunno, Cammd. I don't think HG claimed that everyone who may be sceptical about the scientific community's general belief about AGW is wrong. There's no doubt IMHO that there can be reasoned, intelligent, honest "sceptics"; people like you, Ian and others may well fall into that category. That's fine.

But then there's a loud tribe like TA who are just dishonest. They are interesting (and very frustrating) because they make no real attempt to be honest or reasonable. The "climate warriors stuck in ice" thing is just a side point but it's one that the dishonest deniers, such as TA and Bolt, make a big deal about and it can be said that, as HG says, we should not let them get away with repeating the lies until people believe them.

Is there any empirical evidence of me lying?

Select to expand quote

boofta said..
Opinions, models ,projections, guesses and a whole bunch of baying dogs yelling it's true, it's all going to happen.
Stop predicting and get a grip on facts, current and foreseeable renewables cannot replace our major sources of energy.
Coal, oil, gas,
Get over yourselves, we all hope, pray, predict they can, but they won't, so chill and try to accept the middle road!
A portion of power will be renewable at some cost to pollution and the economy, no amount of green tears will change
that FACT.

And you have no idea

Facts do not care about your feeling

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

cammd said..

holy guacamole said..
^^ Yep much better to accept that liars exist and will always exist. There's no point trying to understand them because they will ignore you and continue wrecking the planet until the last buck is made.

Their moral code is quite different to others.

Lying, is a powerful tactic to be deployed with repetitive consistency until it is accepted by the ignorant masses as a truth.

The same clique told us for decades smoking and asbestos were totally safe. Now they're trying to convince us that burning fossil fuels at ever increasing rates is also safe.

In the USA, their band of greedy profiteers decide who lives and dies in their corrupt privately run ultra-expensive "health care system", which is more akin to a profiteering mafia cartel.

Honesty in their deeds, a concept of human ethics, morality, care for the sustainability of the planet is not a guiding principle in their lives.

They have their own special code and it's quite simple - $$$ rules.

Listen to yourself dude, sounds like you think you have the one true view of the world and all others are infidels

Dunno, Cammd. I don't think HG claimed that everyone who may be sceptical about the scientific community's general belief about AGW is wrong. There's no doubt IMHO that there can be reasoned, intelligent, honest "sceptics"; people like you, Ian and others may well fall into that category. That's fine.

But then there's a loud tribe like TA who are just dishonest. They are interesting (and very frustrating) because they make no real attempt to be honest or reasonable. The "climate warriors stuck in ice" thing is just a side point but it's one that the dishonest deniers, such as TA and Bolt, make a big deal about and it can be said that, as HG says, we should not let them get away with repeating the lies until people believe them.

TA is just winding you u a bit atm (the avatar gives some insite to his humour) but often his posts make really good points and the replies or retorts are more often than not just name calling or labeliing him a denialist etc.

HG on the other hand will accept nothing other than full on compliance with his view, read his posts, he is basically creating a us and them divide and the "them" are evil and bringing about the end of western civilisation, he actually wrote that, that's extreme and its a borderline jihadist type of attitude.

As to lies, both sides of the argument are guilty of that, the whole 97% consensus claim is a lie that gets trotted out all the time, for example There are plenty of other examples of exaggerations all the way through to deliberate deceptions and fraud so don't be surprised if there is a degree of skeptism.

One of the lies that annoys me is the one that attempts to put people in a fossil fuel camp as if they have some sort of self interest. If we could all get abundant energy free from the sun that would fulfill all our needs in a modern society I don't think anyone would be upset, but so far its not possible, not to power a large city. Even making solar panels requires coal but HG et al just ignore many realities that make 100% renewable energy a fanatasy for now. Maybe in the future some new technology will be made but currently solar and wind cannot power our society alone.

Another thing that annoys me is the hypocrisy of people that are passionatley anti coal and anti mining. They enjoy the benefits of the products whilst calling for an end to them. they should go without using them but they don't they come up with a cop out excuse saying it impossible to live in a modern society without using those products. No s%$t Einstein, that's why normal people don't want them banned because we would not have a modern society without them. It blantant hypocrisy as well, they say only the government can make a meaningful change, uh huh sounds convenient, they don't have that same attitude to throwing plastic in the Ocean, when it comes to that every little piece counts so what the difference, maybe because its easy to put your rubbish in a bin but not so easy to go without Fossil fuels, those extreme views have zero credibility.

@HG my mistake, I thought you were saying the failure to ban coal would bring about the end of the world, which I thought was a very extreme view.

I guess what TA is refering to is groups like XR, they have stated goals of ending Westen Colonialism/Capitalism, clear evidence that the climate debate is being used to bring about political goals as well. You yourself has scoffed at the idea of politics using climate change as a vehicle to further political ideas but clearly that happens. Plenty of evidence if you care to look objectivley.

Its a shame that happens because it doesn't help to unify people in a common goal, if anything it divides. I myself was and are opposed to a carbon tax as I see it as being far mare effective at redistributing wealth than it is at reducing emissions as just one example.

I can get behind practical measure's I struggle to support idealogical ones

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
@HG my mistake, I thought you were saying the failure to ban coal would bring about the end of the world, which I thought was a very extreme view.

I guess what TA is refering to is groups like XR, they have stated goals of ending Westen Colonialism/Capitalism, clear evidence that the climate debate is being used to bring about political goals as well. You yourself has scoffed at the idea of politics using climate change as a vehicle to further political ideas but clearly that happens. Plenty of evidence if you care to look objectivley.

Its a shame that happens because it doesn't help to unify people in a common goal, if anything it divides. I myself was and are opposed to a carbon tax as I see it as being far mare effective at redistributing wealth than it is at reducing emissions as just one example.

I can get behind practical measure's I struggle to support idealogical ones

Glad you agree Tony Abbott's views are extreme. No worries on that point of agreement.

By the way, I never advocated we "ban coal" , nor did I ever link that non-statement with TA's end of the world scaremongering.

I know TA is referring to greenies and XR, but that's not what I'm on about. I'm on about taking reasonable, measured steps towards long term goals. People like TA like to lump all people who support action into the fringe group because that hides the fact that people like TA are the real fringe extremists.

I think what's happened in the political sphere in the past decade or so is a testing of ideas in Australia. So far, this testing process has led to the demise of several prime ministers and left the nation devoid of a cohesive national policy framework. That's why the states, local councils, business and households are going it alone.

A price signal on pollution would have been the cheapest way forward. Coupled with a 2050 and regular targets, this is all that was needed. Instead, we have the same tired old scare mongering and arguments about tax trotted out by the same tired old conservatives. There is a very simple way to avoid paying a carbon tax - reduce your emissions! Gee whiz. I think the carbon price is dead in the water for now, thanks to extremists like Tony Abbott.

What's an ideological measure? Sorry I don't get your drift? Is going carbon neutral by 2050 ideological?

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..Co2 is plant food

Indeed it is. Here, have a smiley stamp.

So why do we keep removing more vegetation than we plant? Surely, if you're suggesting we can continue to emit more CO2 on the basis that it's good for "plants" then we also need more plants to take it all out of the atmosphere.

But hang on, weren't you also advocating in the bushfire thread that we chop down more trees and that the evil "greenies" were stopping us from achieving that?

So easy being a troll bot, you don't have to be consistent, logical, rational or practical.

Now methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas on the other hand is not plant food. How does a climate change denying end of the world prognosticating troll bot reconcile that?