Yes his family might but if he's still in detention he might not.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Bigblu
- Start date
Yes his family might but if he's still in detention he might not.
If there was the equivalent of personal guarantees for his company then much of that, if he had it, could be at risk.
A paper billionaire really.
I'm not in a position to do that Bayview, but can offer some fairly obvious turning points that is public knowledge.
A hell of a lot in all of these public debates hinges on the language used.
The groundwork was done to create these "dirty polluters".....the so called big bad 500 companies that for many months / years the list identifying these companies was kept a secret by the Labor Govt. Of course, before the "dirty polluters" label, they were simply power companies and mining companies and transport companies that everyone in society relied upon for cheap power, cheap building products and cheap logistics.
Suddenly....if you subscribe to a certain ideology.....they are re-badged as "big dirty polluters". If you don't subscribe to a certain ideology, they are simply providing useful products society demands at a minimum of cost. Critically, many many many members of society believe the price of the products, based on electricity cost, and the flow through effect it has within society, is waaay too high as it is and want it to come down....not go higher.
Those who subscribe to the first ideology couldn't give a rats about the cost and are happy to spend whatever it takes to convert society to their way of thinking. Crucially - the struggling battlers - who vote en masse - are not happy with this philosophy and are not prepared to sacrifice the extra money.
Turning points
6 days prior to Aug 2010 federal election, both Labor and Liberal commit to their being no Carbon Tax.
17 days after the Aug 2010 federal election.....due to the result of the lower house, and the 9 senate seats the Greens control, Julia realises that without getting into bed with the Greens, she will have presided over the only first term loss of Govt since Whitlam. She gets into bed and pays whatever price is necessary.
The necessary price extracted by the Greens is a Carbon tax.
The price is paid.
Without the hung parliament result, we would not have a Carbon tax. It's a thought bubble from the 10 or 11% of the population that vote Green. Like most of their thought bubbles, when practically implemented, they usually turn to custard. The Greens come up with all sorts of ideas, but because they never have the heavy burden of implementing responsible governance, they have no clue what damage their ill thought out plans can inflict.
Liberals call the Carbon tax for what it is, a lie foistered on them without their consent. Liberals run a campaign centred around this lie. It becomes the first ticket item on the Liberal agenda if they are successful at the election.
Sept 2013, the first chance the Australian public actually get to have a say on what they actually think of the Carbon tax. The Australian public unequivocally give their decision through the ballot box. The majority of people do not want a Carbon tax. It's utterly rejected by a 53 / 47 majority, which more importantly translates to a 90 / 55 seat majority on the floor.
Of course, life is far more complicated than that, and there are a multitude of reasons on why people vote. The Carbon tax wasn't everything, but it was a significant difference between the two major parties.
Labor is kicked out of office. They'll be the opposition for a very long time. What their ideology is on the subject and what the Greens ideology on the subject is, has been kicked to the back blocks for a good while.
I suspect however, in the mean time, whilst they sit and twiddle their thumbs in the backblocks, the zealots will continue to push their ideology, completely ignoring the will of the people as demonstrated convincingly at the ballot box.
Bit left of topic but.....
http://www.gizmag.com/soylent-future-of-food/27684/
I think things like this will definitely become more prevalent as food production is affected by climate change ( be that as a result of human influence or not ) and as population increases!!
http://www.gizmag.com/soylent-future-of-food/27684/
I think things like this will definitely become more prevalent as food production is affected by climate change ( be that as a result of human influence or not ) and as population increases!!
Gees, why call it soylent?
Anyway, thankfully for the majority of people who aren't farmers, global warming means increased food production. I don't give a stuff what the climate scientists reckon, they are wrong.
See ya's.
I heard one say that 1+1=2 the other day. Clearly she wasn't listening in her maths class...
I just watched David Attenborough talking about turtles off Africa. Being a BBC program it stayed within their program guidelines of preaching CC but this time they dropped a clanger 
He said that the sex of turtles is effected by the temperature the eggs are hatched at and with global warming (whoops, CC now David, it stopped warming 15 years ago) it means that more females than males will be born. This will lead to an imbalance of female turtles to male turtles and she May have trouble finding a mate.
As he is held up as an expert he should be Very, Very aware that male turtles will fight over the opportunity to mate, even taking it to the extreme of attacking and biting another male while he is "on the job." I have seen docos showing up to 6 or 8 males fighting over the one female turtle which suggest to me that a few more females would be a good thing.
A male turtle can mate with dozens of females each season, they ain't praying mantises
Their fervent efforts to convert everyone to the CC mantra are really becoming quite silly as they say dumb things which anyone can see are wrong.
This is just one example fresh on my mind when I came online but it is almost to the point where BBC docos are losing their good reputation and the European ones are now more accurate.
He said that the sex of turtles is effected by the temperature the eggs are hatched at and with global warming (whoops, CC now David, it stopped warming 15 years ago) it means that more females than males will be born. This will lead to an imbalance of female turtles to male turtles and she May have trouble finding a mate.
As he is held up as an expert he should be Very, Very aware that male turtles will fight over the opportunity to mate, even taking it to the extreme of attacking and biting another male while he is "on the job." I have seen docos showing up to 6 or 8 males fighting over the one female turtle which suggest to me that a few more females would be a good thing.
A male turtle can mate with dozens of females each season, they ain't praying mantises
Their fervent efforts to convert everyone to the CC mantra are really becoming quite silly as they say dumb things which anyone can see are wrong.
This is just one example fresh on my mind when I came online but it is almost to the point where BBC docos are losing their good reputation and the European ones are now more accurate.
I'm not sure what you are on about here?
How about look at the facts that are in front of you?
See ya's.
I think this because I look at the facts in front of me and I have no agenda.
The facts are that CO2 increases plant growth. I don't think there is anyone who would deny this fact.
The facts are also that rainfall is increasing in most parts of the world. Including Australia. The only part of Australia with decreasing rainfall is the far south west of WA and this is already a very wet place and a decrease in winter rainfall there would be of not much concern to food production. On my farm I have weather records from every day since 1938 and rainfall has increased significantly, and best of all, most of the increase is summer rainfall. Summer rainfall is far more effective for food production because it also has increased sunlight and heat.
Rainfall is increasing in Australia,
Rainfall is increasing in the US,
Rainfall is increasing globally,
Climate scientists are going to say that rainfall is increasing in some places and decreasing in others. The facts are that rainfall is decreasing in way less places compared to where it is increasing. Add to that increased temperatures and increased CO2 levels and it means increased food production.
Rainfall is a simple thing to measure. It's basic and has been done the same way since forever. It's not like measuring ocean currents from boats hundreds of years ago or measuring temperatures from a place that 200 years ago was farmland, but now is concrete cities. We know rainfall records are accurate, unlike other climatic measures.
As a farmer, growing crops requires many decisions. One is when to plant so as to avoid frost or heat. This decision is made mainly due to the climate. If I know that the temperature has increased by one degree, I can simply plant a crop a few weeks earlier. This means the crop is growing in exactly the same climate as it would have been in a climate that was one degree cooler. It's all pretty simple. I once thought that climate scientists would know about simple stuff like this? That farmers can adjust planting times? But after the debarcle where they tried to convince Australians that we were in a permanent drought, I now realise they are not real bright.
The facts are that throughout earths history the warm times have ment abundant and thriving life. The cold times have ment death and famine. Human civilization has developed in the ten thousand year interglacial period we are now enjoying. The earths current normal state is iceage. This interglacial period has gone for longer than normal.
1816 was a cool year, because a volcano caused a volcanic winter that dropped temperatures by 0.4 to 0.7 ?C worldwide. This was a human disaster with hundreds of thousands dieing of famine. Yep. Just 0.4 to 0.7 degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Frost just a few weeks early can be devastating.
I really can't think of any reason why global warming wouldn't increase food production. The worlds farmers are increasing food production by about 40 million tonnes each and every year. Most of this is because of better technology, but a small reason I reckon is because of all the reasons I've just mentioned. The fact that a warmer planet means increased food production.
See ya's.
Last edited:
Absolutely!
Attachments
I also saw that docco last night, and I have really loved watching DA my whole life.I just watched David Attenborough talking about turtles off Africa. Being a BBC program it stayed within their program guidelines of preaching CC but this time they dropped a clanger
He said that the sex of turtles is effected by the temperature the eggs are hatched at and with global warming (whoops, CC now David, it stopped warming 15 years ago) it means that more females than males will be born. This will lead to an imbalance of female turtles to male turtles and she May have trouble finding a mate.
As he is held up as an expert he should be Very, Very aware that male turtles will fight over the opportunity to mate, even taking it to the extreme of attacking and biting another male while he is "on the job." I have seen docos showing up to 6 or 8 males fighting over the one female turtle which suggest to me that a few more females would be a good thing.
A male turtle can mate with dozens of females each season, they ain't praying mantises
Their fervent efforts to convert everyone to the CC mantra are really becoming quite silly as they say dumb things which anyone can see are wrong.
This is just one example fresh on my mind when I came online but it is almost to the point where BBC docos are losing their good reputation and the European ones are now more accurate.
But, in recent years the GW angle has been a lot more obvious in his shows....
I tried to look up the percentages of females to males just now, and interestingly, it is so hard to track population because the males almost never return to shore after birth.
Good luck tracking percentages as well, then.
And, don't forget that about 90% of them don't even make it to adulthood...
So, all you can go on is an estimate, and this is based on the sand temp for the allocation of the sexes.
DA then claims that the GW will affect the sand temp and therefore the balance of the sexes...now; seriously...
Given that the mating and birth timeframe is anywhere from March to October, and the gestation period is 6-10 weeks, and the weather can change from day to day....
The parameters are so varied it is impossible to ascertain a pattern of how many females versus males will be born. It's a very tenuous link at best, but they trot it out for the whole world, and talk like it is the absolute gospel.
It's hysterical.
Last edited:
Because, TC; the ice is melting and the sea level is going to rise 20 metres - yes, 20 metres - and drown out Earth, and you and your farm.
Seriously though; I was chatting to one of my schoolmates (who is also a farmer like yourself; wheat, dairy etc - has been a farmer his whole life) at a sort of School Reunion/Birthday last year, and we got to talking about work and so on..
His comment about the climate was Australia is currently in a "wet cycle" which has been going on for about 10,000 years or more (or was it 30,000? not too sure now), and the normal climate for Aus is/has been much drier.
In other words; we're currently in a bit of a wet spell.
His comment about the climate was Australia is currently in a "wet cycle" which has been going on for about 10,000 years or more (or was it 30,000? not too sure now), and the normal climate for Aus is/has been much drier.
In other words; we're currently in a bit of a wet spell.
He might be referring to the interglacial period we are in. These are wet warm periods where life thrives. The ice age is dry and freezing.
I'd imagine if we went into iceage again, most humans would perish.
See ya's.
Because, TC; the ice is melting and the sea level is going to rise 20 metres - yes, 20 metres - and drown out Earth, and you and your farm.
Maybe some on this thread, seing as though it's a property investing forum, are worried about their city/coastal investments going under water...?
Whilst we in the bush, way more than 20m above sea level, are not worried and may actually prefer to see it happen so as to make our investments in the bush more in demand...?
Out there...
LOL...
You may end up on the coast yet!Maybe some on this thread, seing as though it's a property investing forum, are worried about their city/coastal investments going under water...?
Whilst we in the bush, way more than 20m above sea level, are not worried and may actually prefer to see it happen so as to make our investments in the bush more in demand...?
Out there...
LOL...
We are about 60 metres above sea level, so we're alright, Jack.
Safety Flash notice at work recently stated that for a cyclone to form the water temperature has to be higher than 26% so I would assume as the temperature of the oceans rise (whether it be from climate change or just natural phenomena), more cyclones will form, and will form in areas that in the past didn't have cyclones. This surely will have an impact on agriculture, industry etc etc?
