do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

Does anyone younger than 40 want to read about how my husband and I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, with learning disabilities and a divorced mother in the early 1960s, and still manage to own 1.6 million dollars in property?

If we 2 losers can do it, then so too can all the other disadvantaged losers out there. Disadvantaged, in Australia. Are you kidding me? The poorest person on welfare in Australia is financially ahead of 90% of the world's population FFS.

Like Bayview, I too don't have any time for the whingeing poor.
 
Thanks.

Look; I come across as a hard heated b@stard at times on this site, but I really am not.

Those who know me know I am extremely generous and will help anyone, so I am the first to say we need to help those here in Aus that need the help.

Noone can do it on their own; I realise that.

Hell; If I was PM none of these other Countries would get aid before our own Country's folks do.

A billion dollars to Indonesia? Think how many hospitals and schools and cops and paramedics that would pay for.

No; I'm not hard-hearted; I'm just intolerent of whiners or the "working poor" who say they are poor/diadvantaged etc because of XYZ factors and use these excuses to justify why they are poor.

If you are gunna be poor, do so and don't whine, or use excuses and begrudge others who aren't.

That sort of rot is - for 96% of us - a load of BS.

So you do want to help the disadvantaged, ok that's progress, but why only the Australian ones?

As for your "working poor" I think we've established that these people are not necessarily disadvantaged. I get that you don't like whinging dole bludgers. Let's leave them out of the discussion.
 
Does anyone younger than 40 want to read about how my husband and I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, with learning disabilities and a divorced mother in the early 1960s, and still manage to own 1.6 million dollars in property?

If we 2 losers can do it, then so too can all the other disadvantaged losers out there. Disadvantaged, in Australia. Are you kidding me? The poorest person on welfare in Australia is financially ahead of 90% of the world's population FFS.

Like Bayview, I too don't have any time for the whingeing poor.

Did you get any help from your Mum? A lot of kids out there don't right? And chances are, they're not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, so the question becomes, how do we help those kids less fortunate than yours? If at all. You seem to be in the "we don't" camp, but that's not a society that I want to live in.
 
Did you get any help from your Mum? A lot of kids out there don't right? And chances are, they're not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, so the question becomes, how do we help those kids less fortunate than yours? If at all. You seem to be in the "we don't" camp, but that's not a society that I want to live in.

gooram here's a great exercise: Can you list the problems which arise from the government 'helping' disadvantaged people?
 
So you do want to help the disadvantaged, ok that's progress, but why only the Australian ones?
Charity begins at home.

A large number of the other Countries' woes are related to self-inflicted wounds such as Civil war, famine (related to their over-population), etc.

Many of them are massively over-populated, and the folks are starving. STOP HAVING KIDS. Their Governments need to set up programs for this and to improve possibilities for farming, etc.

It is not our responsibility to save them.

Natural disasters are not self-inflicted of course, but they always will occur, and these Countries need to do some self-planning for many of them - landslides, floods, tsunamis, bushfires and so on - don't live in these areas, and don't over-populate.

As for your "working poor" I think we've established that these people are not necessarily disadvantaged. I get that you don't like whinging dole bludgers. Let's leave them out of the discussion.
I have not mentioned dole bludgers once in this debate...they are a whole other topic - don't get me started on that lot.

I am talking about those who are the working poor...I think I have italicized the word about 3 times now to highlight the subject...

The working poor are those who are earning money. On a wage, renting or buying, driving a car, etc...the average Joe who has too much week at the end of the money - and whinges about it.

But; they are that way due to every single life decision they have made to date; the things they spend money on, or don't spend money on, their education levels (you don't have to be a Uni-qual student, but you need to have at least a competent Year 10 level as a bit of a guide).

Why do I say this?

Not because you need Year 10 to succeed, but the very fact that folks are failing Year 10 (or buggering off from school before Year 10) is an illustration of their level of commitment to life in general - "hard yards", learning, relationships, manners, saving money and so forth - they are primarily folks who take the easy option in almost every aspect in their lives.

And they arrive at a position as a younger adult where they are battlers who live hand to mouth and cry all day long about it, blame the Boss, blame the Gubbmint, blame everyone else but themselves, pump out a swag of kids they can't possibly ever hope to afford, and so on.

Not that I don't want to help these folks - I would LOVE to get hold of every single kid in school and teach them the basic things about money and work and work ethic, attitude towards life... Bill Gates made a great speech about these things to a group of school kids.

If I could do that; in the next generation we would have no (or little) working poor.

We would have a population of kids coming up through school saving 20% and more of their pocket money towards investing; not their first car, or horse, or holiday etc. That comes out of the rest that's left.

They pay themselves first, they pay themselves first when they get a part-time job after school, when they start work. By 30 years of age they are set up and not the working poor - probably the financially free (or close to it)

But I'll bet you that 95% or more of the working poor - never did the above.

Hell; I was one, but made a better choice/s....started very late.

If an idiot like me can do it, then everyone else can and should be able to get ahead of the working poor..
 
Not that I don't want to help these folks - I would LOVE to get hold of every single kid in school and teach them the basic things about money and work and work ethic, attitude towards life... Bill Gates made a great speech about these things to a group of school kids.

If I could do that; in the next generation we would have no (or little) working poor.

Next you'll be telling us that the cure for depression is to just snap out of it.

You have such simple solutions to these problems. If only life was that simple.
 
Next you'll be telling us that the cure for depression is to just snap out of it.

You have such simple solutions to these problems. If only life was that simple.
There's a good comparison....not.

Depression is a mental disease, the other is a financial statement.

But I admire your passion to help others.

I'm older and and a lot less tolerant of folks - seen too much in life I'm afraid...bit like the cynical cop who has to put up with too much cr@p..

If you read back through you will see I say 'most" or "many"...not "all"

You guys are so literal.

I don't expect for one minute that ALL working poor are that way completely of their own fault.

But from my experience; the ones who don't whine are either happy to have got that far in life, or are out there doing something about their position.

Like all of us here on SS, pretty much.

As a group though; I am with you that they need help.

But not in the form of crutches and hand-outs - help in the form of incentive and education on how to change their position.

Of course; it's one thing to provide the programs and incentives, another to get folks to do them.
 
so the question becomes, how do we help those kids less fortunate than yours? If at all. You seem to be in the "we don't" camp.

And you obviously don't know what I do in my day job. I'll give you a hint.

I teach the most disadvantaged teenagers in my suburb. Are you familiar with the Year 11 Prevocational Maths course? It includes chapters about healthy eating, budgeting, managing money, getting car loans, running a lawn mowing business, working out the tax payable on your income and how to choose a suitable phone plan.

I teach Functional Literacy and Functional Numeracy to the most disadvantaged year 10 kids in my suburb. Do you even know what that is?

I spend half an hour five days a week at lunchtime doing "Playground Duty" which is another way of modelling and teaching social skills, manners, turn-taking etc to the kids who are so disadvantaged that they need a structured lunchtime program to keep them safe from trouble while we attempt to teach them the life skills to navigate the scary world.

Do not insult the integrity of a lady who works in Special Education, especially on a Friday!
 
The climate change debate kinda reminds me of the "smoking is bad for your health debate" in the 60s and 70s. The majority of peer reviewed papers demonstrated the ill effects and there was a consensus among scientists that this was the case. The tiny minority of scientists were typically funded by tobacco companies, just as most of the opposing climate change scientists are funded by dirty energy or extreme right wing thing tanks. The deniers of tobacco harm used the same sort of FUD as climate change deniers.
 
The climate change debate kinda reminds me of the "smoking is bad for your health debate" in the 60s and 70s. The majority of peer reviewed papers demonstrated the ill effects and there was a consensus among scientists that this was the case. The tiny minority of scientists were typically funded by tobacco companies, just as most of the opposing climate change scientists are funded by dirty energy or extreme right wing thing tanks. The deniers of tobacco harm used the same sort of FUD as climate change deniers.
I don't think it's even a close comparison.

With smoking; the evidence was many thousands of obvious deaths.

With Global Warming; they talk of very incremental changes, and on a topic which has shown to be at best so wildly fluctuating over the Earth's surface on any give day, and for millions of years...followed up with predictions based on a computer model....all to which we nay-sayers say; "Are you guys serious?"

Then we get the the shifting goal post of "It's Climate Change!"

And worse still; they say we caused the climates to change.

I'll say again - since I've been alive, and from observation only; the variations are so incremental as to be non-detectible to the naked eye, and or patterns or deficiency thereof.

I did hear that in the last 100 years the sea level may have risen in the order of 7cm's....2.75 inches. Are they serious?

2.5inches in 100 years....maybe.

Holy Frack; I am shaking in my boots.

Every day a container-ship or 20 does a left hand turn at the bottom of the Shipping Lane just near us at McCrae, and about 10 mins later a 1/2 metre bow wave smashes onto the shore and washes up the beach about 10metres...exactly like a Tsunami - it first of sucks the wqater off the beach, then the wave/s appear and the whole thing floods back to shore and more.

Every-frickin-day, several times a day..

Even the wind changes the level on the shore.

God knows what a Force 5 hurricane etc would do to the levels out to sea.

How can you possibly average out a depth in any ocean to register a variation that small, with a gabillion different factors changing the level in any given spot??

And....WE caused it, goddamit!

But hey; you guys run with it.
 
Bayview...I have said it many times. You should formally submit your research for review. You WILL a Nobel prize, you WILL be funded by oil and coal companies to further your research, you will have a better life and retirement.

You owe it to the people of the world to share your findings, there are so many worried greenies, isn't it cruel of you not to allay their fears? Isn't it irresponsible of you to allow governments globally to waste money on this myth? You could single handedly put many many billions of dollars back into the global economy.

You don't even have to formally write your paper, I know scientists and statisticians who would be willing to work with you to prepare and present papers. They would love to have a better retirement. How about it?
 
The climate change debate kinda reminds me of the "smoking is bad for your health debate" in the 60s and 70s. The majority of peer reviewed papers demonstrated the ill effects and there was a consensus among scientists that this was the case. The tiny minority of scientists were typically funded by tobacco companies, just as most of the opposing climate change scientists are funded by dirty energy or extreme right wing thing tanks. The deniers of tobacco harm used the same sort of FUD as climate change deniers.
Yes it is very similar, the same anti-science forces at work for special interests and money, or just plain ignorance of the facts. Their numbers are fast dwindling though.
There is even more evidence of climate change than the health dangers of smoking, but still they persist.
 
Bayview...I have said it many times. You should formally submit your research for review. You WILL a Nobel prize, you WILL be funded by oil and coal companies to further your research, you will have a better life and retirement.

Problem is, it's hard to do that when you don't believe in science.
 
There is even more evidence of climate change than the health dangers of smoking, but still they persist.
Sure, there is plenty of evidence of climate change - it has been happening for billions of years.

But there is zero evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity.

And there has been no statistically significant warming for almost two decades, despite an acceleration in CO2 emissions over that time. The IPCC are now referring to this period as the 'hiatus'. It wasn't predicted by any of their flawed models. They are now scrambling to try and explain it (they have at least a dozen different theories/guesses floating around), with the main one being that the warming has decided to bypass the atmosphere, bypass the upper levels of the ocean, and hide deep down in the ocean where we can't measure it.

Of course they ignore the most obvious conclusion - i.e. human CO2 emissions were never the primary driver of climate change in the first place.

Meanwhile we have record cold and snowfalls in many parts of the world.

The climate will continue to change regardless of human activity and regardless of this ridiculous crusade to 'stop climate change' using taxes.
 
How can you possibly average out a depth in any ocean to register a variation that small, with a gabillion different factors changing the level in any given spot??

You don't understand it, so how can it be true? Surely that's not what you're saying is it? How much is a "gabillion" by the way?
 
You don't understand it, so how can it be true? Surely that's not what you're saying is it? How much is a "gabillion" by the way?
Ok; enlighten me on how you can measure it.

As an aside; Topcropper produced evidence here on SS about how various temp measurements were "cherry picked" - so temp measurements are not even accurate.

Why would they cherry-pick the sites where measurements were recorded and only use the "favourable" GW ones? You need to ask those folks who did it. It stinks of an agenda.

But that's not even the point.

The point is; a notional change in depth (supposedly) versus a mass which covers 70% of the planet, always shifting, rising, falling, heating, cooling, storms, drought, wind, ice, no ice, erosion...have I missed any?

And; it's all our fault for being here and destroying it all...in the last 5 mins (relatively) of the earth's life that we have inhabited the joint.

A gabillion is......a lot. It's a really great word to use in discussions to exaggerate stuff.

Not quite a Google, but frickin' close. :D

Conversely; a "poofteenth" is less than a miniscule, but more than microscopic.

A "smidge" is more than a minsicule.

Also cool words to use to exaggerate stuff.
 
Last edited:
Sure, there is plenty of evidence of climate change - it has been happening for billions of years.

But there is zero evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity.

And there has been no statistically significant warming for almost two decades, despite an acceleration in CO2 emissions over that time. The IPCC are now referring to this period as the 'hiatus'. It wasn't predicted by any of their flawed models. They are now scrambling to try and explain it (they have at least a dozen different theories/guesses floating around), with the main one being that the warming has decided to bypass the atmosphere, bypass the upper levels of the ocean, and hide deep down in the ocean where we can't measure it.

Of course they ignore the most obvious conclusion - i.e. human CO2 emissions were never the primary driver of climate change in the first place.

Meanwhile we have record cold and snowfalls in many parts of the world.

The climate will continue to change regardless of human activity and regardless of this ridiculous crusade to 'stop climate change' using taxes.
Thankyou.

I was getting a bit worried about this joint.
 
Back
Top