Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Feds plan to co-fund electric vehicle chargers. Seems to be based on the 'Field of Dreams' theory of 'if you build it they will come'.

https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/a ... e-chargers
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140250
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Seems to be an egregious waste of taxpayers’ money. Simply shouldn’t be happening. Rent seekers transferring their costs onto others… other taxpayers. Awful public policy.
Image
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

See link for some opportunities created for new entrants to the sustainability market.
https://sustainabilitymag.com/esg/fiske ... ic-vehicle
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

*Proceeds to vote Liberal*
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

EDIT
Last edited by greeneyed on January 1, 2022, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Broken link
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

*still votes Liberal*
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

RedRaider wrote: January 1, 2022, 10:54 amEDIT
This was a cartoon of Santa in a self drive EV sleigh. I don't why the Edit?
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140250
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider wrote: January 1, 2022, 6:51 pm
RedRaider wrote: January 1, 2022, 10:54 amEDIT
This was a cartoon of Santa in a self drive EV sleigh. I don't why the Edit?
It was a broken link, without an explanation of what the link was for. I do try my best to fix things… but we can’t in those circumstances.
Image
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Now an Oil Company moving to support Electric Vehicle (EV) charge hubs
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
User avatar
1992
Jason Croker
Posts: 4439
Joined: April 24, 2011, 4:08 pm
Favourite Player: Joseph 'the worm' Tapine

Re: Climate change

Post by 1992 »

The climate change cult are even worse than the covid cult.
WHAT A LONG STRANGE TRIP IT'S BEEN
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6804
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: January 14, 2022, 12:50 pm Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
I think attacking a particular party over how they name things is somewhat semantics:-
- Labors - climate / environment policy - https://www.alp.org.au/policies/
- liberals - climate / environment policy - https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/environment

Couldnt find a carbon tax in either to be honest.

Either way, labor has some good stuff on electric vehicles, and on improving waterways

Liberals have some good stuff on taking care of waste / recycling.

Neither party had much on tree planting reforestation - maybe tony abbott sold that one too poorly.

As an aside - labor party listed six odd policies under climate change but only had one or two in education and health... at least labor know that banging on about the environment is the way to go for this election.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: January 14, 2022, 12:50 pm Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
I think attacking a particular party over how they name things is somewhat semantics:-
When did I do that?
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6804
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: January 27, 2022, 8:30 pm
papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: January 14, 2022, 12:50 pm Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
I think attacking a particular party over how they name things is somewhat semantics:-
When did I do that?
Ripping the libs for having an “environmental policy” instead of a “climate change” policy..
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick there. I’m not having a crack at them over semantics. I’m saying they don’t have proper policy for addressing climate change, nor have they for 15 years.
User avatar
gergreg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10672
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

gangrenous wrote:You’ve got the wrong end of the stick there. I’m not having a crack at them over semantics. I’m saying they don’t have proper policy for addressing climate change, nor have they for 15 years.
It's purely coincidental that they finally started giving a crap about the environment when Andrew Twiggy Forrest decided to invest heavily in hydro.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

BOM predicting another couple of months of La Nina but weakening.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Still cool with sitting on our hands on climate change Red? Still happy with your critiques of models over the people with years of experience and PhDs?

Or have you finally seen enough massive natural disasters to want to address the situation properly and admit that perhaps these folks know what they’re talking about? Maybe do something to help your kids and grandkids?
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: March 19, 2022, 9:43 am Still cool with sitting on our hands on climate change Red? Still happy with your critiques of models over the people with years of experience and PhDs?

Or have you finally seen enough massive natural disasters to want to address the situation properly and admit that perhaps these folks know what they’re talking about? Maybe do something to help your kids and grandkids?
:welcome: Fiction writer
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

No fiction here. You’re on record supporting the Liberal party and their (lack of) policy on climate change. You’re on record as saying that expert models should be questioned because of aspects you have zero knowledge on.

All pretty solid facts here.

Unless you’ve recognised your errors?
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Yawn, more fiction. I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from. I accept that the writers of an IPCC report made a mistake in saying the Himalaya glaciers were melting faster and said it was good that they were able to admit to error. Somehow you have twisted this into a broadbrush on the entire scientific community. You are a fiction writer
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:Gangers, I am attempting to discuss with you the need to rely on the Empirical evidence on the issue of Climate change. For someone like me, empirical evidence is all important. It is that evidence which should determine actions by business, Government and individuals. I have no doubts the empirical evidence shows rising trend temperatures beginning from the early to mid 1970s. This is consistent with a longer term warming trend which can also see decades of 'cooler than average' temperatures. For me this means linear model forecasts need to be questioned.
Oh so this wasn’t you saying that there’s nothing to worry about because we’ve seen ice ages before and the modelling you don’t understand is wrong?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from.
Well that’s not true. You don’t want Australia to do anything serious. Certainly not via a carbon pricing mechanism which everyone agrees is most efficient approach and was shown to work.

Just own your denial and that you’re unwilling to sacrifice a thing to stop climate change because you don’t accept the science and you’re happy to support a party actively thwarting progress at international panels to make change.
Coastalraider
David Furner
Posts: 3313
Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance

Re: Climate change

Post by Coastalraider »

How can it be warming if it’s always raining?
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: March 19, 2022, 8:36 pm
RedRaider wrote:I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from.
Well that’s not true. You don’t want Australia to do anything serious. Certainly not via a carbon pricing mechanism which everyone agrees is most efficient approach and was shown to work.

Just own your denial and that you’re unwilling to sacrifice a thing to stop climate change because you don’t accept the science and you’re happy to support a party actively thwarting progress at international panels to make change.
Maybe you haven't seen this link to the news of November 2021.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11 ... arbon-tax/
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: March 19, 2022, 8:32 pm
RedRaider wrote:Gangers, I am attempting to discuss with you the need to rely on the Empirical evidence on the issue of Climate change. For someone like me, empirical evidence is all important. It is that evidence which should determine actions by business, Government and individuals. I have no doubts the empirical evidence shows rising trend temperatures beginning from the early to mid 1970s. This is consistent with a longer term warming trend which can also see decades of 'cooler than average' temperatures. For me this means linear model forecasts need to be questioned.
Oh so this wasn’t you saying that there’s nothing to worry about because we’ve seen ice ages before and the modelling you don’t understand is wrong?
Just so you understand the definition:
arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line.
"linear movement"
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:
gangrenous wrote: March 19, 2022, 8:36 pm
RedRaider wrote:I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from.
Well that’s not true. You don’t want Australia to do anything serious. Certainly not via a carbon pricing mechanism which everyone agrees is most efficient approach and was shown to work.

Just own your denial and that you’re unwilling to sacrifice a thing to stop climate change because you don’t accept the science and you’re happy to support a party actively thwarting progress at international panels to make change.
Maybe you haven't seen this link to the news of November 2021.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11 ... arbon-tax/
Don’t try and deflect.What do you support? It’s not a price on carbon you’ve said so.

You don’t get to point the finger at Labor dropping a policy because you and your ilk killed it as politically viable.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:
gangrenous wrote: March 19, 2022, 8:32 pm
RedRaider wrote:Gangers, I am attempting to discuss with you the need to rely on the Empirical evidence on the issue of Climate change. For someone like me, empirical evidence is all important. It is that evidence which should determine actions by business, Government and individuals. I have no doubts the empirical evidence shows rising trend temperatures beginning from the early to mid 1970s. This is consistent with a longer term warming trend which can also see decades of 'cooler than average' temperatures. For me this means linear model forecasts need to be questioned.
Oh so this wasn’t you saying that there’s nothing to worry about because we’ve seen ice ages before and the modelling you don’t understand is wrong?
Just so you understand the definition:
arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line.
"linear movement"
Just so you understand:
You don’t get to dismiss modelling on the basis of your own daft assumptions about how it works when you don’t know ****.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16728
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 20, 2022, 3:34 pm
Don’t try and deflect.What do you support? It’s not a price on carbon you’ve said so.

You don’t get to point the finger at Labor dropping a policy because you and your ilk killed it as politically viable.
Ignoring for a second how ugly a term 'you and your ilk' is here, and how it is another example of both sides desperately trying to point a finger at the other, not even Labor blames the right side of politics for this particular crashing policy failure -https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/te ... 201-p53fpv

The fact is the the Greens took an extreme position, refused to negotiate and as a result the entire legislation was voted down - despite LNP senators crossing the floor.

Sooner rather than later we will need some form of carbon pricing. Unfortunately, it will take people of all kinds of 'iks' to grow up and find a consensus position.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140250
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

However, a carbon price was put into place, and the coalition government dismantled it. The coalition very clearly led the trenchant opposition to doing anything.
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16728
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:19 pm However, a carbon price was put into place, and the coalition government dismantled it. The coalition very clearly led the trenchant opposition to doing anything.
A carbon price that was supported by neither the right or the left! The Greens voted against it!

Sorry, but that's almost the definition of unworkable.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140250
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:59 pm
greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:19 pm However, a carbon price was put into place, and the coalition government dismantled it. The coalition very clearly led the trenchant opposition to doing anything.
A carbon price that was supported by neither the right or the left! The Greens voted against it!

Sorry, but that's almost the definition of unworkable.
It was implemented and in legislation. There was a transition year to a floating price. It was certainly workable.
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16728
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote:
T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:59 pm
greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:19 pm However, a carbon price was put into place, and the coalition government dismantled it. The coalition very clearly led the trenchant opposition to doing anything.
A carbon price that was supported by neither the right or the left! The Greens voted against it!

Sorry, but that's almost the definition of unworkable.
It was implemented and in legislation. There was a transition year to a floating price. It was certainly workable.
Well, the Greens and the LNP and, as it transpired, the majority of the electorate felt differently.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140250
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 3:53 pm
greeneyed wrote:
T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:59 pm
greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 2:19 pm However, a carbon price was put into place, and the coalition government dismantled it. The coalition very clearly led the trenchant opposition to doing anything.
A carbon price that was supported by neither the right or the left! The Greens voted against it!

Sorry, but that's almost the definition of unworkable.
It was implemented and in legislation. There was a transition year to a floating price. It was certainly workable.
Well, the Greens and the LNP and, as it transpired, the majority of the electorate felt differently.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
And we know why. The trenchant scare campaign from the coalition. Based on a denial of climate change science and poor economic policy to boot. The lack of action is costly for the environment and it will have significant economic costs. What's worse, what we're now doing is inadequate and more costly for taxpayers.
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16728
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

Why are we all talking about the coalition? If the Greens had supported it, it would still be law.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Post Reply