Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Q. » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:33 am

Carbon taxes are a good idea if funding is funnelled into renewable energy R&D to promote the uptake of low CO2E energy sources (which is part of the intention of ours). Solar power is set to dominate on a global scale and we have the opportunity to capitalise on this boom like we've capitalised on our mining industry.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 22019
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 970 times
Been liked: 2397 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:56 am

Quichey wrote:Carbon taxes are a good idea if funding is funnelled into renewable energy R&D to promote the uptake of low CO2E energy sources (which is part of the intention of ours). Solar power is set to dominate on a global scale and we have the opportunity to capitalise on this boom like we've capitalised on our mining industry.


Instead of blatant wealth re-distribution which is what this proposal is all about
dedja: Dunno, I’m just an idiot.
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15066
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 828 times
Been liked: 1275 times
Grassroots Team: Prince Alfred OC

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby once_were_warriors » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:58 am

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Quichey wrote:Carbon taxes are a good idea if funding is funnelled into renewable energy R&D to promote the uptake of low CO2E energy sources (which is part of the intention of ours). Solar power is set to dominate on a global scale and we have the opportunity to capitalise on this boom like we've capitalised on our mining industry.


Instead of blatant wealth re-distribution which is what this proposal is all about



Has happened since the dawn of time.

Sometimes it is distributed up the ladder, sometimes down the ladder.

Coupled with Canada and New Zealand , Australia is one of the best countries to live in.
If at first you don't succeed , then destroy all evidence that you tried in the first place
once_were_warriors
Under 18s
 
 
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: under Scoreboard Woody Oval
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Sky Pilot » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:31 pm

Abbott's performance in Parliament today was outstanding. BOG - 3 votes A Abbott.
Gillard was worse than pathetic - incompetent even when filibustering her t!ts off.
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
User avatar
Sky Pilot
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4390
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Stone Hut Bakery
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: BMW

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Leaping Lindner » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:16 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite


I met a historian once that said the Holocaust was a myth.
"They got Burton suits, ha, you think it's funny,turning rebellion into money"
User avatar
Leaping Lindner
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4325
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:02 pm
Location: Victoria
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 48 times

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Drop Bear » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:38 pm

Leaping Lindner wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite


I met a historian once that said the Holocaust was a myth.


I met a plumber who constantly talked sh*t.
1. M Hayden.
User avatar
Drop Bear
League - Top 5
 
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: The Doghouse
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Psyber » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:48 am

Drop Bear wrote:
Leaping Lindner wrote:
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
I met a historian once that said the Holocaust was a myth.
I met a plumber who constantly talked sh*t.
I know a Gasroenterologist who says, "It may be sh*t to you, but it's bread and butter to me." ;)
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 404 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Grahaml » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:04 am

Quichey wrote:
Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.

However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.


Is it your opinion that evidence is 'scratchy' and 'small scale' or are you just regurgitating denialist opinion that fails to examine the scientific data.

I would say a 0.9 correlation coefficient is better than 'scratchy' and that the research is far from 'small scale'.


Over what period is that? Our year by year data streches back only very recently and the accuracy has in fact changed due to updated techniques being used and if you try to compare the data used in those records and compare to records thousands of years ago and further back collected with other methods you aren't comparing apples with apples. The precision of the techniques such as ice core sampling aren't year by year such as taking average temperatures for a year across the globe. You are confusing 2 totally separate issues. The first is global warming/climate change, the second is the cause. Nobody credible is denying climate change is happening, the real argument is whether and how much we are pushing it along by our activities. I'm not being a denialist. What is being a denialist is ignoring the natural factors that would have existed whether we were here or not.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby fish » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:28 pm

Sky Pilot wrote:
fish wrote:Quichey is right Sky Pilot.

You and "straight talker" have both made ridiculous statements that you have been totally unable to substantiate and that is why I've questioned your credibility. However as I'm in a generous mood I'll give you one more chance - I'm off-line for the next week whilst on holiday let's see if you can come up with anything by the time I return...

The statements I've taken exception to are:

Sky Pilot wrote:I don't denounce science - just the whole climate change sham. I firmly believe it is tainted with self interest, corruption, industrial espionage and interest. The science varies from country to country and whose vested interest has the most to lose or gain.

straight talker wrote:how bout flannery,garnaut and gore i mean they all said the dams would be empty high rise buildings would be engulfed by the rising sea level etc
Any facts or evidence whatsoever to back up your statements would be appreciated!

Nice try Fish.
Well I can't say I didn't try to get some truth out of you - sadly (but not unexpectedly) I was unsuccessful. ](*,)

These posts illustrate perfectly the lack of credibility from the climate change deniers camp - the lies and unsubstantiated rubbish the deniers spread never ceases to amaze me! :^o [-x

Thankfully many governments, policy-makers, corporations, communities and individuals stopped listening to this crap from deniers years ago and are getting on with the job (albeit slowly and in an ad-hoc manner) of tackling climate change when and where they can. :ymapplause:
Last edited by fish on Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
fish
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6908
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:28 pm
Has liked: 190 times
Been liked: 48 times

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby fish » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:35 pm

Grahaml wrote:
Quichey wrote:
Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.

However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
Is it your opinion that evidence is 'scratchy' and 'small scale' or are you just regurgitating denialist opinion that fails to examine the scientific data.

I would say a 0.9 correlation coefficient is better than 'scratchy' and that the research is far from 'small scale'.
Over what period is that? Our year by year data streches back only very recently and the accuracy has in fact changed due to updated techniques being used and if you try to compare the data used in those records and compare to records thousands of years ago and further back collected with other methods you aren't comparing apples with apples. The precision of the techniques such as ice core sampling aren't year by year such as taking average temperatures for a year across the globe. You are confusing 2 totally separate issues. The first is global warming/climate change, the second is the cause. Nobody credible is denying climate change is happening, the real argument is whether and how much we are pushing it along by our activities. I'm not being a denialist. What is being a denialist is ignoring the natural factors that would have existed whether we were here or not.
That's an interesting theory grahaml but it is not what the latest science tells us:

It is beyond reasonable doubt that human activities – the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – are triggering the changes we are witnessing in the global climate.

A very large body of observations, experiments, analyses, and physical theory points to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – with carbon dioxide being the most important – as the primary cause of the observed warming.

Increasing carbon dioxide emissions are primarily produced by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, as well as deforestation.

Natural factors, like changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, cannot explain the world-wide warming trend.
User avatar
fish
Coach
 
 
Posts: 6908
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:28 pm
Has liked: 190 times
Been liked: 48 times

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Psyber » Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:36 am

While I was initially sceptical about how significant the human contribution to global warming was, my discussions with staff at the Uni of Adelaide's Environment Institute, and reading the references supplied by John Tibby, has convinced me it is a significant additional factor on top of the current peak in the Milankovich Cycles.

Now, I am concerned that we in Oz are ignoring the energy science that can supply reliable energy while reducing our CO2 output most significantly.
India is developing Thorium Fission and will ultimately sell the technology to China, as they phase out their dependency on Coal.
And the German government, in concert with BMW, is gradually rolling out totally carbon free Hydrogen fuel for cars.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 404 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Sky Pilot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:38 pm

Meanwhile, back to Abbott. I think its hilarious the way he has completely got Green Labour on the run. They can't take an inch without Tony exposing them for what they are - out of touch, out of control rabble who are ruining our country against overwhelming public opposition. Go Tony
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
User avatar
Sky Pilot
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4390
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Stone Hut Bakery
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: BMW

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Leaping Lindner » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:08 pm

Had a laugh last night on the news not only as we have seen in the past does Tony know more about climate change than scientists he now knows more about how to handle refugee boats on the seas than the most senior officer in the Australian navy, Admiral Griggs.
Is there ANYTHING this guy isn't an expert on?? We are SO lucky to have him.
"They got Burton suits, ha, you think it's funny,turning rebellion into money"
User avatar
Leaping Lindner
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4325
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:02 pm
Location: Victoria
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 48 times

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby redandblack » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:20 pm

Sky Pilot wrote:Meanwhile, back to Abbott. I think its hilarious the way he has completely got Green Labour on the run. They can't take an inch without Tony exposing them for what they are - out of touch, out of control rabble who are ruining our country against overwhelming public opposition. Go Tony


"Ruining our country"??

I suppose if you keep spouting Liberal propaganda, you eventually think it's true.

How is the country being 'ruined'.

Low unemployment, low inflation, reasonable growth, strong exports, positive balance of trade and interest rates that have been steady for nearly a year and are likely to fall soon.

Our economy is the envy of the world.

If that's a ruined country, I'm happy.

(PS: remember the old line "Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Government") :roll:
redandblack
 

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Sky Pilot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:21 pm

I don't think he plays lawn bowls or lacrosse
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
User avatar
Sky Pilot
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4390
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Stone Hut Bakery
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: BMW

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Sky Pilot » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:24 pm

Mmmm. I think we were $20bn in surplus when the greens took over and now we are $100bn in debt and no one is in control.
Yep we are the lucky country
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
User avatar
Sky Pilot
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4390
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:39 pm
Location: Stone Hut Bakery
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: BMW

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby redandblack » Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:41 pm

Just about the lowest debt level of any major economy in the world.

Got through the GFC in better shape than anywhere else because of that spending.

I'm sure you could do better than that if you're saying the country has been ruined.

If you want to debate the question, have another go. 'Ruining the country", you said.

Surely it's not just a mantra to parrot whenever the facts get in the way>
redandblack
 

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Psyber » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:14 pm

redandblack wrote:Just about the lowest debt level of any major economy in the world...
That is a true statement that gets trotted out regularly as though it proves ongoing debt is sustainable or even desirable.
But it may be meaningless if the present world trend continues and any debt just slowly grows because it doesn't get paid off.
All those massive debts we hear about now started small and grew because governments thought "just a little bit more won't hurt".

Our lower debt level may just mean we are the last "developed" country to go under.
Any debt we can't be sure we can pay of in future is a bad idea in the present world environment.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12247
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 104 times
Been liked: 404 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby redandblack » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:54 pm

That's very true, Psyber and a proper warning if deficits are used to just spend.

In this case, it was used to stimulate the economy during the GFC and IMO only the churlish (not you) would say it wasn't effective in keeping people in jobs and the economy ticking.

Some will stress about pink batts, some will look at the bigger picture.
redandblack
 

Re: Abbott Watch

Postby Sojourner » Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:54 am

Its interesting that the ALP are very keen to return the budget to surplus ASAP, clearly we need to pay down our debt, but at the same time I don't see a problem with having some level of debt if its being used to create infrastructure and is within the capacity to be repaid promptly. I am pretty sure Chifley had to borrow in order to set up the Snowy Scheme and that was a pivotal moment of our history in terms of actually boosting our economy as a result.
Steamranger, South Australia's best ever Tourist Attraction, Treat Yourself, Let your Money Buy you Happiness!!!
User avatar
Sojourner
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:25 pm
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 3 times
Grassroots Team: Ovingham

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |