Climate Change - your views?

[topcropper]

And causing all that hurt and suffering to those poor oil companies who can barely make ends meet as it is and who survive on the bones of their ar$e.

If you want to run the self-interest argument - at least knowledge that the door swings both ways.

M

For someone who has made enough from investing to never have to work again, you have a weird way of looking at some things.

Oil companies? They are finding and pumping the lifeblood of civilization. How do you have such a negative view about something as important to the world as oil?

I still think you have a chip on your shoulder because so far you've missed the resource boom. It's not too late you know. You've only missed the easy part. Just buy some BHP, and Woodside, chuck em under your bed for ten years, and put yourself out of your frustration mate.

See ya's.


ps. Opps, forgot the disclaimer.

....This is not advice. Anyone who takes advice about shares from a farmer on a property forum deserves to lose all their money.
.
.

 

[Brenda Irwin]

Woodside has done well for me. I've only had 10.5k WPL for a couple of weeks and they've gone up 2k already.

I have a question about farm fertilizers. If they aren't good for waterways then what about fish fertilizers? They were already once in the water. I found a nice use for the fish doos when I clean my fish tank and my orange tree loves it.

 

[topcropper]

I have a question about farm fertilizers. If they aren't good for waterways then what about fish fertilizers? .

Any organic fertilizer is great. They are great cause you can put heaps on and not harm anything. They are safe to the environment.

Most broad acre farms, espacially grain farms can't use organic fertilizer though because it's not economic. We would have to use tonnes of the stuff per hectare, as it's not very concentrated. Plus most organic fertilizer originates from the grain farms of the world anyway from animal manure. The grain farms produce the grain, that ends up as organic fertilizer [manure], although obviously, fish fertilizer has a different origin.

For a garden, organic fertilizer is great.

See ya's.

 

[Brenda Irwin]

Bit of a shame, topcropper, that while many graziers have no fodder, your paddocks could have plenty to feed cattle after you've taken the grain off the top. If the graziers put their cattle in there for a few weeks, you would have plenty of free poop for fertilizer. Every little bit helps.

 

[topcropper]

Wouldn't make one bit of difference Brenda.

The poop from the cattle would be from the nutrients in the stubble that was in my paddock. I would be just getting back my own nutrients that were already in the paddock. But there would be a slight loss to me. If the cattle all put on 50 kilos per beast while they were in my paddock, I would be loosing those nutrients that goes in their bodies when they leave.

It's all just a big system. What is removed, has to go back. If I'm removing 5 tonnes per hectare from my paddock in grain, the nutrients have to be replaced, or else I'm just mining the soil. If it goes in beef, it's no different.

Everyone around here did just mine the soil [ie didn't use fertilizer], until everything ran out about 30 years ago.


Any more ag questions, ya better ask on one of my ag threads before everyone gets the poops.

See ya's.

 

[MarkB]

How do you have such a negative view about something as important to the world as oil?

Because the world (it's environment & atmosphere) is more important to the world than oil.

M

 

[Sunfish]

Will the real Pitt St please step forward.......

I am having great difficulty reconciling Pitt's defence of economists and public servants in the Do you believe in CPI reported by ABS? thread where he takes the line that such public minded professionals could never, ever, possibly fudge the figures to suit their paymasters, with his scurrilous attack on independent scientists who don't believe his version of the world. He, an economist, had the temerity to attack a tenured university paleontologist (Bob Carter) as being unqualified to comment (Bob does have relevant experience) and now as being in the pay of "Big Oil".

Here is the the bio of another GW skeptic Pitt rubbishes:

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Show a little professional courtesy Pitt, and accept that these are honourable Gentlemen and read what they have to say with an open mind. They are not oil company prostitutes and even if they are wrong (I'll admit the possibility) they are not bad men.

 

[MarkB]

Hi Thommo

Yes, I am, as you pointed out, merely an economist.

Re: CPI. I think you completely missed the main thrust of my last post on that topic. When someone argues that the inflation rate is alot higher under a different methodology, (such as by looking at the amount of money printed), my first inclination is to yawn. Why? Because all economists know that (here's a little secret about economists - they've basically all been taught the same stuff from books). The simple fact is that we live in a CPI world (as noted). There's no conspiracy, there's simply an alternative and widley accepted measure for inflation used, compared to the one promulgated in that thread. It's nothing more than a Ford v Holden debate.

Re: Bob Carter - wasn't he the guy who was shown to have right-wing links and who had been rubbished by a former senior CSIRO scientist?

Re: Reid Byrson - like I said there are hundreds of climatologists attached to insurance companies who are saying the opposite to what he is saying. The simple fact is that the vast majority of the informed scientific community says it is a problem.

And then there's the case of Philip Cooney who from 1995 to 20 January 2001 was a lobbyist with the American Petroluem Institute in charge of global warming disinformation. On the day George W Bush was inaugurated, he was hired as Chief of Staff, White House Environment Office. While in that job it was revealed in a memo leaked to the New York Times that Cooney had altered statements by the EPA to downplay global warming. Shortly after this was revealed, he left the White House to go and work for - of all companies - Exxon Mobil. An honourable gentleman, indeed.

M

 

[Andrew_A]

Well at least this thread is warming up.

 

[MarkB]

He, an economist, had the temerity to attack a tenured university paleontologist

Incidently, Thommo, this economist has studied both environmental economics and natural resources economics.

M

 

[sailor]

People don't change until they hurt enough. Sad but true!

 

[Sunfish]

Incidently, Thommo, this economist has studied both environmental economics and natural resources economics.

M

But did you read their papers or simply find enough dirt to dismiss them out of hand?

You have always been rude to me, personally, but that's OK. I have the right of reply. These men don't know you exist. Maybe you should introduce yourself and tell them they don't know what they are talking about. You know, Professional to Professional sort of stuff.

 

[MarkB]

But did you read their papers or simply find enough dirt to dismiss them out of hand?

I stated my reasons above.

You have always been rude to me, personally, but that's OK. I have the right of reply.

And you may have changed your nick, but you haven't changed, have you Thommo?

These men don't know you exist. Maybe you should introduce yourself and tell them they don't know what they are talking about. You know, Professional to Professional sort of stuff.

If they're reasonable men they just might listen.

Not like some I know.

M

 

[Sunfish]

I stated my reasons above.

I read that as a "no".

And you may have changed your nick, but you haven't changed, have you Thommo?

No. Nor have you.

If they're reasonable men they just might listen.

All the more reason to contact them. Go on! Be a Devil!

 

[keithj]

People don't change until they hurt enough. Sad but true!

There's a parallel with investing here -
99% of people won't do hard stuff til tomorrow if it impacts them today.

And looking at the smog in Bankgkok, Chinese industrialised areas, London etc some things will always be in the too hard basket.

The answer is to find something that means that 99% of voters don't have to forego the stuff they're already used to.

We've already found one answer, but the Greenies won't let us use it. I think that if those 99% of voters were given the choice of a power source which produces contained pollution (nuclear) or the current uncontained, planet threatening pollution, they'd make a sensible choice.

In 50yrs we'll look back and see how stupid we were to be so slow in accepting the obvious. Just NIMBY .

And in the medium term we'll work out how to get photovoltaics working cheaply & efficiently.

 

[bernly]

Well at least this thread is warming up.

Loving it!

Cheers

 

[Sunfish]

I think that if those 99% of voters were given the choice of a power source which produces contained pollution (nuclear) or the current uncontained, planet threatening pollution, they'd make a sensible choice. (my emphasis)

The fact that it is contained is nuclear's greatest strength, not a weakness. Surely we are not the only ones to understand this Keith?

 

[Ecogirl]

Brisbane City Council are showing free sessions of An Inconvenient Truth
Maybe they also believe in global warming?
Interesting thread
Amanda

 

[Les]

Brisbane City Council are showing free sessions of An Inconvenient Truth

Hmm - more and more, I think we are collectively being softened up to accept the current mantra (aka "an Inconvenient Truth" et al) !!

Though I agree we need to be more careful with cutting down trees, assisting by putting in water tanks (which were illegal in times past ), living with a bit more thought, etc. And, yes, I agree, all of this is reasonable.

I now see we are beginning to be coerced into buying "Carbon Offsets" - umm, what are these? and how do we know we are not just lining someone else's pockets? Where's the proof that these are a reasonable, valid cost of being a member of today's society?

Watch out for the "green hoax effect" !!!

With water vapour still being something over 95% of our "greenhouse gases" (and these are naturally occurring) how the hell does CO2 suddenly become such a costly gas for us? Isn't that what helps trees grow? So, if it's rising a bit, who's to say that is changing anything so markedly? I mean, it's less than 5% in the scheme of things. And, as I've heard, CO2 rises FOLLOW temperature rises - they don't CREATE them.

Yeah, yeah, I know - I know nothing - haven't been to school for 40-some years (right Acey?) - but I'm not about to be seduced into paying Al Gore for his marvellous magic act.

People, take a bit more time to look around - this is but another "end of the world" scenario unfolding (in the 60's it was "Global cooling" - say wha' ???). Sorry, Pitt St, but I remain firmly entrenched in the camp of sceptic. I understand the angst of younger people who may not have lived through too many of these crises, but I no longer subscribe to them - until the TRUTH hits me in the face. And it hasn't yet.....

Hehe, that didn't come out right, now did it. I mean, the "supposed" truth re mankind causing all of this drama. Yes, I agree the globe is warming - as it has done, off and on, for millenia. Is this time any different? PROVE IT? It almost sounds like property investing according to marketeers - "This time it's different"

Umm, nope - not for this little black duck, (um, sorry, this vertically challenged, pigmentally differentiated, waterfowl )

Regards,

 

[MarkB]

Sorry, Pitt St, but I remain firmly entrenched in the camp of sceptic.

K.

You gotta love this forum. A few hours ago you gave me some kudos (for another post on another thread, and thanks, btw) and now here we are perhaps about to butt heads.

I understand the angst of younger people who may not have lived through too many of these crises, but I no longer subscribe to them - until the TRUTH hits me in the face. And it hasn't yet.....

This is part of the problem.

Dare I turn this into an ageist debate, but the fact is that alot of the people in positions of power and influence (PMs, Presidents, Company CEOs, etc) aren't exactly spring chickens.

And the results of their actions (or lack of actions) (and of the actions or lack of actions of humankind) may never "hit them in the face" namely because they'll be pushing up daisies by the time it would have.

Some reports predict that the Great Barrier Reef will be 95% destroyed (dead) by 2050 if rising sea temperatures persist and dying with it will be the $5.8b pa tourism industry that depends on it (not to mention the protection afforded to the north queensland coast).

But one thing is for (all but) certain - John Howard wont live to be 120 years old and see in 1/1/50.
Now I certainly wish John a long and healthy life, but the oldest person in the world is, as of today, 114 years and 170 days old - still a long way short of the 120 and a bit years JWH would need.

M