Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 4:01 pm
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.
* Though I should add that I agree with every word of this bit
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: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 4:58 pm Why are we all talking about the coalition? If the Greens had supported it, it would still be law.
I'm not sure what you mean or wonder why I'm talking about the coalition.

The coalition repealed the carbon price legislation. The Greens voted against the repeal in the Senate. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... carbon-tax

The Greens voted against the original carbon price legislation. I can't read the AFR article, but I presume that Labor has a gripe with that. But what was put in place was transitioning to an effective, good system. The idea that the Greens were the main problem is not a reasonable take in my view.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote: Ignoring for a second how ugly a term 'you and your ilk' is here
Please, how is that particularly offensive?

You know what is offensive? People who want to virtue signal that they care about climate change and know more than experts - when they have a history of denial of the science, opposing sensible intervention and support for a party whose policies are actively detrimental to progress.

I find it bizarre for you to focus on the Greens error a decade ago (trying to do the right thing, but letting perfect be the enemy of good) and give the Coalition GOVERNMENT a free pass on spending the past 10 years continuously and actively making the situation worse. There’s no way you’d accept the same logic if I applied that in reverse against LNP (and nor should you!)
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 21, 2022, 6:34 pm
T_R wrote: Ignoring for a second how ugly a term 'you and your ilk' is here
Please, how is that particularly offensive?

You know what is offensive? People who want to virtue signal that they care about climate change and know more than experts - when they have a history of denial of the science, opposing sensible intervention and support for a party whose policies are actively detrimental to progress.

I find it bizarre for you to focus on the Greens error a decade ago (trying to do the right thing, but letting perfect be the enemy of good) and give the Coalition GOVERNMENT a free pass on spending the past 10 years continuously and actively making the situation worse. There’s no way you’d accept the same logic if I applied that in reverse against LNP (and nor should you!)
Boy, you went to town here.

Firstly, I didn't find it offensive. I said it was ugly.

I don't virtue signal about climate change nor claim to know more about the experts. I guess this was a further tedious dig at another poster.

And I made it very clear in this thread what I think of the Coalitions - I believe I said that I 'agree with every word' of what GE had to say.

All I said was that if the Greens had voted for this, it would have remained law...something that YOU have managed to ignore in all your posts.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 6:26 pm
T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 4:58 pm Why are we all talking about the coalition? If the Greens had supported it, it would still be law.
I'm not sure what you mean or wonder why I'm talking about the coalition.

The coalition repealed the carbon price legislation. The Greens voted against the repeal in the Senate. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... carbon-tax

The Greens voted against the original carbon price legislation. I can't read the AFR article, but I presume that Labor has a gripe with that. But what was put in place was transitioning to an effective, good system. The idea that the Greens were the main problem is not a reasonable take in my view.
Read Gillard's biography for some background on this. If the Greens has stayed out of this, and had not carried Labor into an untenable position (remember we had BY FAR the world's highest price on carbon), I strongly believe that we'd have the original legislation in effect today.

And, before the veins in gangrenous' forehead bulge out any further, none of that means I in any way support the Abbott government's actions in the area. All it means is I believe they were given a huge free kicks in running a negative 'axe the tax' campaign.
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
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: March 21, 2022, 6:34 pm
T_R wrote: Ignoring for a second how ugly a term 'you and your ilk' is here
Please, how is that particularly offensive?

You know what is offensive? People who want to virtue signal that they care about climate change and know more than experts - when they have a history of denial of the science, opposing sensible intervention and support for a party whose policies are actively detrimental to progress.

I find it bizarre for you to focus on the Greens error a decade ago (trying to do the right thing, but letting perfect be the enemy of good) and give the Coalition GOVERNMENT a free pass on spending the past 10 years continuously and actively making the situation worse. There’s no way you’d accept the same logic if I applied that in reverse against LNP (and nor should you!)
Boy, you went to town here.

Firstly, I didn't find it offensive. I said it was ugly.

I don't virtue signal about climate change nor claim to know more about the experts. I guess this was a further tedious dig at another poster.

And I made it very clear in this thread what I think of the Coalitions - I believe I said that I 'agree with every word' of what GE had to say.

All I said was that if the Greens had voted for this, it would have remained law...something that YOU have managed to ignore in all your posts.
Ugly? Pfft.

Yes, I’m very clearly not talking about you.

The Greens did the wrong thing 10 years ago. It’s highly irrelevant to what was being discussed. Would you like me to include a list of very bad decision made by anyone in particular every time we talk about Climate Change? It’s not like I was here arguing the Greens did the right thing 10 years ago.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote: All I said was that if the Greens had voted for this, it would have remained law...something that YOU have managed to ignore in all your posts.
I don’t agree that’s the case. I think an Abbott government seeks to unwind it still.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 21, 2022, 7:14 pm Ugly? Pfft.

Yes, I’m very clearly not talking about you.

The Greens did the wrong thing 10 years ago. It’s highly irrelevant to what was being discussed. Would you like me to include a list of very bad decision made by anyone in particular every time we talk about Climate Change? It’s not like I was here arguing the Greens did the right thing 10 years ago.
Well, you're clearly very passionate, gangrenous.

Sadly, the spittle-flecked rant has never been a particularly good way of convincing anyone of anything, so I fear your passion may be wasted here.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 21, 2022, 7:18 pm
T_R wrote: All I said was that if the Greens had voted for this, it would have remained law...something that YOU have managed to ignore in all your posts.
I don’t agree that’s the case. I think an Abbott government seeks to unwind it still.
The you have more respect for the Abbott government than I ever did. I believe they saw a populist wedge, and took it - and ridiculous overreach on the legislation, forced by the Greens (who then voted against it anyway) is what led to it.

But who knows. I guess we'll find out in another 20 years or so when the cabinet papers emerge.
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
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: March 21, 2022, 7:14 pm Ugly? Pfft.

Yes, I’m very clearly not talking about you.

The Greens did the wrong thing 10 years ago. It’s highly irrelevant to what was being discussed. Would you like me to include a list of very bad decision made by anyone in particular every time we talk about Climate Change? It’s not like I was here arguing the Greens did the right thing 10 years ago.
Well, you're clearly very passionate, gangrenous.

Sadly, the spittle-flecked rant has never been a particularly good way of convincing anyone of anything, so I fear your passion may be wasted here.
Ad hominem, where’s my spittle flecked rant?
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

Oh dear

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
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Classic T_R
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

Anytime there is any comparison between parties about climate change the only thing I think of is our current PM strutting into Parliamentary Question time with a lump of coal, as a **** prop. It was only 5 years ago that this happened, with a support crew behind him laughing it up.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gergreg wrote: March 22, 2022, 7:00 am Anytime there is any comparison between parties about climate change the only thing I think of is our current PM strutting into Parliamentary Question time with a lump of coal, as a **** prop. It was only 5 years ago that this happened, with a support crew behind him laughing it up.
Yep, but we have a problem. And that problem is that a question of science has been allowed to morph into the usual divisive 'red v blue' conversation, and both sides are at fault. The anti-science approach of the stupid right is no better or no worse than the patronising contempt of the smug left (think of the 'climate convoy' that may well have saved QLD for the LNP in the last election).

At some point, we're going to have to stop sneering at 'people of your ilk' and work out how to build a consensus stance on this issue, or we'll be locked into an eternal cycle of dodgy legislation and repeals unto eternity. At the moment, it feels like both sides are further apart than ever.
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: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 7:11 pm
greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 6:26 pm
T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 4:58 pm Why are we all talking about the coalition? If the Greens had supported it, it would still be law.
I'm not sure what you mean or wonder why I'm talking about the coalition.

The coalition repealed the carbon price legislation. The Greens voted against the repeal in the Senate. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... carbon-tax

The Greens voted against the original carbon price legislation. I can't read the AFR article, but I presume that Labor has a gripe with that. But what was put in place was transitioning to an effective, good system. The idea that the Greens were the main problem is not a reasonable take in my view.
Read Gillard's biography for some background on this. If the Greens has stayed out of this, and had not carried Labor into an untenable position (remember we had BY FAR the world's highest price on carbon), I strongly believe that we'd have the original legislation in effect today.

And, before the veins in gangrenous' forehead bulge out any further, none of that means I in any way support the Abbott government's actions in the area. All it means is I believe they were given a huge free kicks in running a negative 'axe the tax' campaign.
Clearly a floating price from the start, which reflected the world price, would have been far preferable. An initial fixed price made it technically a tax in that period. But as Credlin has said publicly, subsequently, the coalition had decided to call a floating price system a tax, even though they knew it wasn’t. The scare campaign was easy to run from there. It was based on fundamental rejection of climate change. The details of the scheme didn’t matter much when the coalition messages were that simple.
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote: March 22, 2022, 8:59 am
T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 7:11 pm
greeneyed wrote: March 21, 2022, 6:26 pm
T_R wrote: March 21, 2022, 4:58 pm Why are we all talking about the coalition? If the Greens had supported it, it would still be law.
I'm not sure what you mean or wonder why I'm talking about the coalition.

The coalition repealed the carbon price legislation. The Greens voted against the repeal in the Senate. https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... carbon-tax

The Greens voted against the original carbon price legislation. I can't read the AFR article, but I presume that Labor has a gripe with that. But what was put in place was transitioning to an effective, good system. The idea that the Greens were the main problem is not a reasonable take in my view.
Read Gillard's biography for some background on this. If the Greens has stayed out of this, and had not carried Labor into an untenable position (remember we had BY FAR the world's highest price on carbon), I strongly believe that we'd have the original legislation in effect today.

And, before the veins in gangrenous' forehead bulge out any further, none of that means I in any way support the Abbott government's actions in the area. All it means is I believe they were given a huge free kicks in running a negative 'axe the tax' campaign.
Clearly a floating price from the start, which reflected the world price, would have been far preferable. An initial fixed price made it technically a tax in that period. But as Credlin has said publicly, subsequently, the coalition had decided to call a floating price system a tax, even though they knew it wasn’t. The scare campaign was easy to run from there. It was based on fundamental rejection of climate change. The details of the scheme didn’t matter much when the coalition messages were that simple.
Which detracts not at all from my point that with the world's highest price for carbon in place, the government saw a wedge opportunity and took it (and there was some good ammo out there - electricity up 14% in the half year etc). A modest floating price in line with the rest of the world would have provided far less opportunity.
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: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

The issue was that the international price at the time was quite variable. But the terms of coalition campaign had been set well before that. They were set when Abbott was elected opposition leader.

A big part of the problem was the CPRS was a fairly simple concept, but it was unavoidably full of technical detail. People fall into the trap of saying, if only we could find a killer fact, or set of killer facts, that’ll convince them. You’re then in a mire of detail, that almost no one in the general public can wade through.

The coalition position was simple. Cast doubt that there’s even a problem, give oxygen to those who deny climate change is happening. It doesn’t make any difference what we do anyway. Call the system a tax and we will abolish this new tax.

Meanwhile, engage in some razzle dazzle, questioning and casting doubt over every fact, every detail. But that really didn’t cut through with the public. It didn’t matter much if the price of carbon was $10 or $15 or $23. Apart from creating the general air that this was all very complex and all too hard.
Image
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote: March 22, 2022, 9:38 am The issue was that the international price at the time was quite variable. But the terms of coalition campaign had been set well before that. They were set when Abbott was elected opposition leader.

A big part of the problem was the CPRS was a fairly simple concept, but it was unavoidably full of technical detail. People fall into the trap of saying, if only we could find a killer fact, or set of killer facts, that’ll convince them. You’re then in a mire of detail, that almost no one in the general public can wade through.

The coalition position was simple. Cast doubt that there’s even a problem, give oxygen to those who deny climate change is happening. It doesn’t make any difference what we do anyway. Call the system a tax and we will abolish this new tax.

Meanwhile, engage in some razzle dazzle, questioning and casting doubt over every fact, every detail. But that really didn’t cut through with the public. It didn’t matter much if the price of carbon was $10 or $15 or $23. Apart from creating the general air that this was all very complex and all too hard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your memory is playing tricks on you. Abbot became opposition leader in December 2009, I believe. The Clean Energy Act was introduced in 2011. Prior to that, the Turnbull government supported the CPRS. The Greens did not.

When Abbott came to the leadership, he joined the Green and independents in voting against the legislation.

Gillard and the Greens then came up with the Clean Energy Bill, after Gillard said that she would not price carbon in her first term. Abbott then claimed this to be a 'great big tax on everything' and opposed it on the grounds it was a broken election promise. It was subsequently then repealed when the Libs came to power.

But maybe it's my memory that's wrong. I'm pretty old.
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: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Memory still OK despite my label as ageing. 😉 The terms of the coalition’s campaign was fundamentally set when Abbott was elected leader, and Turnbull was turfed out… over climate change policy and Turnbull’s support for the CPRS. It never really changed. Based on the denial of climate change. Oppose any effective action.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote:Yep, but we have a problem. And that problem is that a question of science has been allowed to morph into the usual divisive 'red v blue' conversation, and both sides are at fault. The anti-science approach of the stupid right is no better or no worse than the patronising contempt of the smug left (think of the 'climate convoy' that may well have saved QLD for the LNP in the last election).
That’s some enlightened centrist crap. Just because the left has made errors. Does not mean the blame is equal and equivalent.

Science denial of the right is all on them. No one forced them to deny science. Nor is it an isolated case.

I’d argue that being factually wrong and anti-intellectual is very much worse than being smug and patronising.

T_R wrote:At some point, we're going to have to stop sneering at 'people of your ilk' and work out how to build a consensus stance on this issue, or we'll be locked into an eternal cycle of dodgy legislation and repeals unto eternity. At the moment, it feels like both sides are further apart than ever.
I’m perfectly happy to have a reasonable discussion. But I’m not going to continue to smile and nod while people are being hypocrites or talking crap.

Perhaps what we need is to actually hold people more accountable when what they say doesn’t make sense. I don’t know how we get people to actually engage with that instead of just turning back to echo chambers and news sources that are warm and fuzzy and tell them they’re right.

You don’t agree with RedRaider, but focus entirely on the person you perceive as smug and patronising over one that’s denying science. Does that help us meet in the middle? What’s your role in helping here?
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote:Yep, but we have a problem. And that problem is that a question of science has been allowed to morph into the usual divisive 'red v blue' conversation, and both sides are at fault. The anti-science approach of the stupid right is no better or no worse than the patronising contempt of the smug left (think of the 'climate convoy' that may well have saved QLD for the LNP in the last election).
That’s some enlightened centrist crap. Just because the left has made errors. Does not mean the blame is equal and equivalent.

Science denial of the right is all on them. No one forced them to deny science. Nor is it an isolated case.

I’d argue that being factually wrong and anti-intellectual is very much worse than being smug and patronising.

T_R wrote:At some point, we're going to have to stop sneering at 'people of your ilk' and work out how to build a consensus stance on this issue, or we'll be locked into an eternal cycle of dodgy legislation and repeals unto eternity. At the moment, it feels like both sides are further apart than ever.
I’m perfectly happy to have a reasonable discussion. But I’m not going to continue to smile and nod while people are being hypocrites or talking crap.

Perhaps what we need is to actually hold people more accountable when what they say doesn’t make sense. I don’t know how we get people to actually engage with that instead of just turning back to echo chambers and news sources that are warm and fuzzy and tell them they’re right.

You don’t agree with RedRaider, but focus entirely on the person you perceive as smug and patronising over one that’s denying science. Does that help us meet in the middle? What’s your role in helping here?
I honestly assumed some sort of typo had occurred.

Shirley any reference to 'smug' can only relate to one individual and that is a PM that wears a **** eating grin 24/7.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 22, 2022, 6:59 pm
That’s some enlightened centrist crap. Just because the left has made errors. Does not mean the blame is equal and equivalent.
No, it's pragmatic.

You ignored my point.

Until there can be consensus built, we're going to be in a continual cycle of 'red v blue'. As we've seen in Australia and around the world, the left come to power and introduce legislation, the right come to power and it gets binned.

As I've said over and over, the science is largely ignored and the issue has become a 'wedge' used by both sides - coal in parliament and 'climate convoys to Queensland'. Both equally damaging own goals, but dog whistling to the already-converted.

So, yeah. Keep calling people names. You get to feel all smug and superior, but you don't get meaningful action on climate change.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gergreg wrote: March 22, 2022, 7:40 pm
Shirley any reference to 'smug' can only relate to one individual and that is a PM that wears a **** eating grin 24/7.
Yep, that's the problem. You ask around here, and people will tell you that the 'smug' label is best applied to the clown that thought it was a good idea to drive from Melbourne to tell people in Queensland that they were hicks.

And don't call me Shirley.
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
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote: March 22, 2022, 7:40 pm
Shirley any reference to 'smug' can only relate to one individual and that is a PM that wears a **** eating grin 24/7.
Yep, that's the problem. You ask around here, and people will tell you that the 'smug' label is best applied to the clown that thought it was a good idea to drive from Melbourne to tell people in Queensland that they were hicks.

And don't call me Shirley.
I dunno? I agree with the point you are making but I don't see how believing that climate change is/was real and attempting to do something about it, or backing a party that is trying to do something about it is smug. There does need to be some sort of agreement between both parties to push this along - our environment is much more at risk from extreme weather than many other countries, as has been clearly evident over the past decade.

I only raised the lump of coal in parliament to emphasise that just 5 years ago the Libs were denying that climate change is real.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: March 22, 2022, 6:59 pm
That’s some enlightened centrist crap. Just because the left has made errors. Does not mean the blame is equal and equivalent.
No, it's pragmatic.

You ignored my point.

Until there can be consensus built, we're going to be in a continual cycle of 'red v blue'. As we've seen in Australia and around the world, the left come to power and introduce legislation, the right come to power and it gets binned.

As I've said over and over, the science is largely ignored and the issue has become a 'wedge' used by both sides - coal in parliament and 'climate convoys to Queensland'. Both equally damaging own goals, but dog whistling to the already-converted.
I didn’t ignore your point. I disagree with it.

It’s like the post I read the other day elsewhere that was saying “look no side has done the perfect right thing and it takes two sides to make the war in Ukraine”. No. Sometimes one side is far more to blame and unjustifiable in their stance. In climate change that is the LNP.

How you move away from that and get consensus? That’s a slightly different argument. But again I don’t think the blame goes first to the feet of those arguing on the basis of fact who are frustrated and highlighting when people are paddling around in misinformation.

It’s not pragmatic to meet in the middle of an imbalance.


T_R wrote: So, yeah. Keep calling people names. You get to feel all smug and superior, but you don't get meaningful action on climate change.
The facts are there and nice talk has done nothing for decades. We don’t get meaningful action on climate change anyway, so I might as well point out the hypocrisy and rubbish of those that support it.

Again I note the hypocrisy in your stance, criticising only me goes against your line of argument here.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gergreg wrote: March 22, 2022, 9:22 pm
T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote: March 22, 2022, 7:40 pm
Shirley any reference to 'smug' can only relate to one individual and that is a PM that wears a **** eating grin 24/7.
Yep, that's the problem. You ask around here, and people will tell you that the 'smug' label is best applied to the clown that thought it was a good idea to drive from Melbourne to tell people in Queensland that they were hicks.

And don't call me Shirley.
I dunno? I agree with the point you are making but I don't see how believing that climate change is/was real and attempting to do something about it, or backing a party that is trying to do something about it is smug. There does need to be some sort of agreement between both parties to push this along - our environment is much more at risk from extreme weather than many other countries, as has been clearly evident over the past decade.

I only raised the lump of coal in parliament to emphasise that just 5 years ago the Libs were denying that climate change is real.
I think we will see consensus over time. But remember that it was only a decade ago that we had the 'climate election' in this country - and the left lost.

As with most political issues, people are at some level focused on their own situation, and that's fair enough. It's a fairly hard sell when you tell a 50 year old coal miner that his $150k a year generational job is going to disappear, but will magically recycle itself into a career in a renewables industry that largely doesn't exist. It's also very easy to sell that chap on the idea that the science is open to dispute.

A lot of people who are very passionate on the climate change issue are people who have very little to lose by the changes that have to take place to address the issue...hell of a lot easier to gain support in inner city Melbourne for binning the Adani mine than it is where that mine is the thing that's going to put your kids through school and pay off your mortgage.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 22, 2022, 9:23 pm
The facts are there and nice talk has done nothing for decades. We don’t get meaningful action on climate change anyway, so I might as well point out the hypocrisy and rubbish of those that support it.
Sometimes when I read your posts I actually laugh out loud.

But the point for me here is that I don't really care about who is to blame. I'd like my kids to have a planet to live on. And your way isn't cutting it.
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
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

What ****. Honestly that’s the stupidest thing you’ve written.

Like we don’t have meaningful action on climate change because of me asking RedRaider to defend his views.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gangrenous wrote: March 22, 2022, 9:34 pm What ****. Honestly that’s the stupidest thing you’ve written.

Like we don’t have meaningful action on climate change because of me asking RedRaider to defend his views.
Yep, well keep on calling people stupid and I'm sure you'll get there. For someone who whines over 'ad hominem' attacks, you're certainly quick on the name calling.

And, of course, that's nothing at all what I said.

Anyway, you have nothing new to say on this so I'll leave you to it.
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
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

I didn’t call you stupid. I said what you wrote is stupid.

“Your way isn’t cutting it” - since when was any of this done my way?
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

For those who do not believe the planet is warming see below link to a visualization on what has happened since 1880. Measured Empirical evidence.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resour ... te-spiral/
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

Who doesn't believe?
Shoving it in your face since 2017
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: November 9, 2021, 11:10 pm 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.
GE, from an economic point of view are there Government enterprises you support? I see it as a source of revenue for Government. Alternatively are you in favor of Public/Private arrangements. I am not opposed to Government owning and operating profitable businesses.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider wrote: March 29, 2022, 6:20 pm
greeneyed wrote: November 9, 2021, 11:10 pm 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.
GE, from an economic point of view are there Government enterprises you support? I see it as a source of revenue for Government. Alternatively are you in favor of Public/Private arrangements. I am not opposed to Government owning and operating profitable businesses.
I’m certainly opposed to governments owning and operating profitable businesses. Production and supply of private goods is the role of the private sector. History shows governments are bad at doing it, and that’s why things which are essentially commercial activities have been sold off by governments all over the world. That’s accepted by the vast bulk of economists these days.

Government intervention in supplying private goods is a drag on the efficiency of the economy, its productive capacity, and the welfare of society. If governments need to raise revenue for the supply of public goods, broad based taxation is the way it should be done. That comes at minimum dead weight losses.

Where goods have both public and private benefits, the issues are more complex. Public/private partnerships might be sensible, particularly where they can drive efficiency in the production of public goods.

However, we should be sceptical of vested interests claiming there are “public good” elements to their proposals for government subsidies and support. Governments subsidising the production of electric vehicle chargers is a classic case of what not to do. The car industry has historically been good at this sort of thing. It’s the old infant industry argument and tariffs all over again. It took us a long time to work out that these sorts of subsidies are bad for the economy.

And if people say… this will be good for reducing carbon emissions… we’ve gone over that ground before. This “direct action” is a very expensive and inefficient way of doing it… with welfare costs for us all.
Image
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by BJ »

You couldn’t write this biased budget review from Sky News with the Paul Murray show…..

He just said we’re going to give you a straight, honest and fair review of tonight’s budget with my guests:

Andrew Bolt
Corey Benardi
Rita Panahi
Joe Hildebrand
Bronwyn Bishop
Campbell Newman
Michael Kroeger

May as well get a straight, honest and fair view of 1930s Europe with our special guests Hitler; Geobbells, Himler, Goring, Eichmann and Fatty Arbuckle.
Post Reply