Climate change
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: Climate change
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
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/a ... e-chargers
Re: Climate change
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.
Re: Climate change
See link for some opportunities created for new entrants to the sustainability market.
https://sustainabilitymag.com/esg/fiske ... ic-vehicle
https://sustainabilitymag.com/esg/fiske ... ic-vehicle
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
*Proceeds to vote Liberal*
Re: Climate change
EDIT
Last edited by greeneyed on January 1, 2022, 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Broken link
Reason: Broken link
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
*still votes Liberal*
Re: Climate change
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.
Re: Climate change
Now an Oil Company moving to support Electric Vehicle (EV) charge hubs
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
- 1992
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: April 24, 2011, 4:08 pm
- Favourite Player: Joseph 'the worm' Tapine
Re: Climate change
The climate change cult are even worse than the covid cult.
WHAT A LONG STRANGE TRIP IT'S BEEN
Re: Climate change
I think attacking a particular party over how they name things is somewhat semantics:-gangrenous wrote: ↑January 14, 2022, 12:50 pm Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
- 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.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
When did I do that?papabear wrote:I think attacking a particular party over how they name things is somewhat semantics:-gangrenous wrote: ↑January 14, 2022, 12:50 pm Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
Re: Climate change
Ripping the libs for having an “environmental policy” instead of a “climate change” policy..gangrenous wrote: ↑January 27, 2022, 8:30 pmWhen did I do that?papabear wrote:I think attacking a particular party over how they name things is somewhat semantics:-gangrenous wrote: ↑January 14, 2022, 12:50 pm Put your money where your mouth is. Vote for someone with a climate policy.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Climate change
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.
Re: Climate change
It's purely coincidental that they finally started giving a crap about the environment when Andrew Twiggy Forrest decided to invest heavily in hydro.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.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: Climate change
BOM predicting another couple of months of La Nina but weakening.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
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?
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?
Re: Climate change
Fiction writergangrenous 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?
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
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?
All pretty solid facts here.
Unless you’ve recognised your errors?
Re: Climate change
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
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
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?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.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Climate change
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.RedRaider wrote:I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from.
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.
-
- David Furner
- Posts: 3879
- Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
- Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Re: Climate change
How can it be warming if it’s always raining?
Re: Climate change
Maybe you haven't seen this link to the news of November 2021.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2022, 8:36 pmWell 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.RedRaider wrote:I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from.
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.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11 ... arbon-tax/
Re: Climate change
Just so you understand the definition:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2022, 8:32 pmOh 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?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.
arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line.
"linear movement"
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
Don’t try and deflect.What do you support? It’s not a price on carbon you’ve said so.RedRaider wrote:Maybe you haven't seen this link to the news of November 2021.gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2022, 8:36 pmWell 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.RedRaider wrote:I support positive actions on climate change regardless of where it comes from.
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.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2021/11 ... arbon-tax/
You don’t get to point the finger at Labor dropping a policy because you and your ilk killed it as politically viable.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: Climate change
Just so you understand:RedRaider wrote:Just so you understand the definition:gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2022, 8:32 pmOh 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?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.
arranged in or extending along a straight or nearly straight line.
"linear movement"
You don’t get to dismiss modelling on the basis of your own daft assumptions about how it works when you don’t know ****.
Re: Climate change
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-p53fpvgangrenous 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.
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.
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.
Re: Climate change
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.
Re: Climate change
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.
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.
Re: Climate change
It was implemented and in legislation. There was a transition year to a floating price. It was certainly workable.
Re: Climate change
Well, the Greens and the LNP and, as it transpired, the majority of the electorate felt differently.greeneyed wrote:It was implemented and in legislation. There was a transition year to a floating price. It was certainly workable.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
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.
Re: Climate change
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.T_R wrote: ↑March 21, 2022, 3:53 pmWell, the Greens and the LNP and, as it transpired, the majority of the electorate felt differently.greeneyed wrote:It was implemented and in legislation. There was a transition year to a floating price. It was certainly workable.
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Re: Climate change
Why are we all talking about the coalition? If the Greens had supported it, it would still be law.
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.