Hey Dan

KoichCPA

Banned
Oct 15, 2001
11,927
137
63
40
Canberra,Australia
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22495630-11949,00.html

What is the liberal government doing long term to protect our exported goods from being drought ravaged? Imagine how strong our economy would be if Howard helped bring our exports totals back up, why isn't he doing this dan?
Why is it, the grant he is giving the farmers will go solely to paying back debt and not into any training or infrastrucutre for these very important people to our economy?


Discuss.
 
As usual, it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. Typical conservative policy-making. It's not as easy as just relocating and retraining a few people whose farms have failed. Two things are most likely to happen. 1. There's a substantial break in the drought that lasts for years. Suddenly there will be ideal farming conditions and no one left to farm, so we'll then have to invest millions to attract people back to the land and re-establish the agricultural sector. By then, the next drought will have hit and we'll be back where we started. 2. The drought never breaks. I need not go into the details should that happen. From what I can see of Labor's plan, their scheme would alleviate both situations. The Libs are just paying people to give up.

The Federal Government won't provide funds for infrastructure because that's a State issue. Never mind the fact that the States' record with infrastructure development is shithouse. What are these people going to do when they "walk off the land"? They've never done anything else except agriculture. It would take years to retrain these people. They have to be housed, most likely in cities where there are already land squeezes and crammed in to places like Melbourne and Sydney which are already at crisis point. Technically, all these people are small business owners, so they don't figure in official unemployment figures even though many of them have been technically unemployed for months and possibly years in some cases. These people have been farmers for generations. They don't know anything else. They'll be almost like foreign immigrants, but unskilled and culturally marginalised in their own country. I post a link here ages ago that the Australian Greenhouse Office had released a study on the effects of climate change about five years ago predicting all this sort of thing and Howard and his cronies took no notice. The economy's teetering on the brink of collapse and Labor will end up with the baggage. Of course by then no one will remember that it was all Howard's fault, just like no one remembers that it was the Hawke/Keating administration who laid the foundations for our current boom in the first place. Howard just inherited it and lied to everyone that he created it.
 
I just found that climate change report I posted once before. It's here if anyone wants to read it. It's bad fucking news. By 2030 virtually all the tourism in North Queensland based on coastal activities could be destroyed, and the size of Australia's snowfields could be reduced by 66%! How's that for economic arse-fucking. And this report was released in 2002, before the last election. Until September 2006, Howard and Costello didn't even believe in climate change and this came from one of their own departments. With all our farms gone and tourism decimated, what sort of economy will we have then?
 
I wouldnt want to be a liberal on this board today..

but c'mon guys think of the benefits of getting the farmers off their land and into the city, we can halt immigration for a while. Time for liberals to take their bat and ball and get the fuck off the oval! We want longterm solutions to these issues.
 
I just found that climate change report I posted once before. It's here if anyone wants to read it. It's bad fucking news. By 2030 virtually all the tourism in North Queensland based on coastal activities could be destroyed, and the size of Australia's snowfields could be reduced by 66%! How's that for economic arse-fucking. And this report was released in 2002, before the last election. Until September 2006, Howard and Costello didn't even believe in climate change and this came from one of their own departments. With all our farms gone and tourism decimated, what sort of economy will we have then?


the size of Australia's snowfields could be reduced by 66%! Thats so funny...fuking snowfields , hey does that mean Canberra will be warmer when i am 67..:erk:
 
the size of Australia's snowfields could be reduced by 66%! Thats so funny...fuking snowfields , hey does that mean Canberra will be warmer when i am 67..:erk:

Canberra is perfect as it is.

Climate wise, get those nazi fucks out of power and it'll be all round perfection.
 
Canberra is perfect as it is.

Climate wise, get those nazi fucks out of power and it'll be all round perfection.

:lol: I love dumb arse lefties, makes my life so much more amusing, and my beliefs are so much more creditable than your's. :kickass:
 
I just found that climate change report I posted once before. It's here if anyone wants to read it. It's bad fucking news. By 2030 virtually all the tourism in North Queensland based on coastal activities could be destroyed, and the size of Australia's snowfields could be reduced by 66%! How's that for economic arse-fucking. And this report was released in 2002, before the last election. Until September 2006, Howard and Costello didn't even believe in climate change and this came from one of their own departments. With all our farms gone and tourism decimated, what sort of economy will we have then?

that is the most exeggerated bullshit I have ever heard. The whole climate change/global warming thing is the most over blown thing ever.

Climate Change Facts:

*Over the last century the temperature has risen 0.6 Celsius

*The temperature rise of 0.6 over the last century is at the bottom of the climate change models suggest should have happened. This leads us to believe that the climate is actually less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

*The predictions of a 6 degree rise over the next century as at the absolute maximum of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) range and are based on economic modeling, not science.

*James Hansen, the creator of the greenhouse theory and Richard Lindzen, a renowned climatologist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology both agree that if nothing is done to restrict these gases, the world will only see a global temperature increase of 1 degree in the next 100 years.

*Temperatures taken from the surface only cover a small fraction of the earth. Temperatures taken from satellite and weather balloons show that the atmosphere has warmed a lot less than the greenhouse theory suggests.

*Studies in Antarctica in the mid 90's revealed that the temperature had actually become cooler.

*Research from the Stockholm University reveals that current sea levels are within range of sea level oscillation over the past 300 years and the satellite data shows virtually no rise over the past decade. The earth experienced a sea level rise of .2m over the past 100 years with no noticeable ill effects.

*At the current sea level/ice loss rate of 0.05mm per year it would take 1000 years to raise the global sea level by 5cm! and it would take 20,000 years to raise just one metre!

*Extreme weather has no link with global warming. The devastating floods and droughts are normal when compared against records of the past. To think that extreme weather has been more damaging of late doesn't take into account that mankind is now living in more dangerous areas than ever before.

*Polar bears aren't drowning because ice is disappearing. Canadian biologists reported that of the 13 populations of polar bears, 11 are stable and increasing in number. They are in no danger of going extinct or even appear to be affected.

*The Kyoto protocol will have no effect on temperature increase as it imposes no restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions upon developing countries like China and India. These two countries have refused to accept any restrictions now or in the future. While other countries cut down on emissions, the emissions from India and China will either take their place or create even more emissions. Economic models suggest that the impact from adopting the targets of the Kyoto protocol will have negative impacts on the gross domestic product rates which in turn impacts negatively on employment with massive job losses.
 
I'm by no means at all educated in this so feel free to call bullshit on me here, but I saw something recently (I think it was a TV documentary on ABC?) that mentioned exactly those findings but it was also entirely debunked on every point with different data, claiming that this data and expert opinions was taken entirely out of context to get those results.

I believe it was this one: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/programme.html

Can anyone back me up on that one or am I just taking shit? HAHA!

Speaking of just talking shit, Dan - it's common knowledge that I don't give half a fuck about politics or anyone's beliefs in the slightest, but I gotta say you still didn't answer anyone's questions at all. Josh asked you to discuss the topic a few posts back (like quite a few people have so far) and instead you just insulted him.

Now me and Matt have had some big disagreements about a lot of stuff and I'm not sure I buy into what he wrote above (again, I really know fuck-all about this so for all I know he could be right), but how he put his argument forward there comes across as a lot more intelligent and gives him a lot more cred than someone who dodges direct questions and just returns empty insults. If you have something to say and are determined to convince us that your point is right (that IS what you're trying to do, isn't it? Not just being argumentative for the sake of it?) then wouldn't it make sense to answer people's questions with clear facts rather than insults?

The whole "can you tell us why you think that" "fuck off lefty pinko commie scum" thing is really starting to get a bit old, man.
 
that is the most exeggerated bullshit I have ever heard. The whole climate change/global warming thing is the most over blown thing ever.

Climate Change Facts:

Where did you get these from? Do you have some links or articles? As a skeptic I'm prepared to look at both sides of an argument but you just stating that they are 'facts' without some evidence to back them up just ends up sounding like 'opinion'. There's a lot of contradictory evidence from both sides that isn't really helping people like you and I who aren't scientists to come up with a really balanced outlook. I am extremely critical of Al Gore after watching his little high school lecture with the way he overlooked or understated certain aspects of the contrary argument so it didn't derail his own. The way he handled (or rather, didn't handle) the Medieval Warm Period rather annoyed me.

What I quoted above came from a government report that I found mirrored on the Bureau of Meterology website. Whether you believe in a significant human impact on climate change or not, it's certainly something you should read. To me, the whole issue isn't so much about whether human impact on climate change in necessarily real or not. It's about making people aware of the wholesale waste of resources. There are people who believe that humans have very little impact on the environment at all, but you only have to look at what's happened to the Aral Sea over the last sixty years to see that this just isn't true. In 1960, the Aral Sea was the world's fourth-largest lake, with an area of approximately 68,000 km²; by 1998, it had dropped to 28,687 km², and eighth-largest. It is currently the 15th largest. In nine years it has gone from being the eighth largest lake in the world to the 15th! That has been caused by the countries around it draining off its feeder rivers for power generation and irrigation of course and not because global warming is drying it up, but it's a perfect example of how finite natural resources are and how quickly we can use them up.

Kyoto has immense flaws but I think if the developed countries can show the developing countries that it is possible to continue to develop without severe environmental impact, this can only lead to better universal resource usage. I think the key to Kyoto is to prove that it's possible to reduce our impact and when places like China and India reach the level that other countries are at currently, they will know, by our example, that the same is possible for them. Just not doing anything because they aren't is like standing around watching a house burn down because no one else can be bothered picking up a hose.
 
Remember when Johnny was saying things like "even the scientists don't agree on the Greenhouse effect" ?

He was playing on the fact that the models that started development in 1988 were at wild variance with each other in all but one respect.

Some models predicted 0.1C warming, others predicted 0.6. So business (and conservatives) decided that if they didn't all agree, then they were wrong.

They all did agree on one key thing...getting warmer.

Looking back at the predictions, and where we went yields the following chart.
revengeofgaiawarming.jpg



Some places will be improved by global warming, some will be made worse.

Biggest problem IMHO is the rate of change (or if there's some trigger effect like a lightswitch...you apply increasing pressure and not much happens. Apply more pressure, and it snaps into a new stable state).

Agriculture and plants/animals in general need a long time to shift lattitudes in response to climate. This is probably too fast for equilibriums to be reached.

Anyone watched Soylent Green ?
 
Regardless of all that's just been posted, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? Because if the climate-change deniers win the argument, and they turn out to be wrong (just say) then we're screwed. Shannow's graph shows that we've fallen in between the worst-case and the mid-worst case. It also shows that temperatures have gone up and down, just like they always do, but the trend has been an increase. From that it looks like the temp around 1960 and 1978 or so was around the same as it was about 1938. A climate change denier could say that this proves his point. But the highest dots in each decade cluster are consistently higher for each decade after 1940, and after 1980 four out of six of them are all higher than 0 degrees. As I said earlier, it might be a little hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt right now that human-related carbon emissions are having a significant impact, but the figures show the temperatures are rising and with 6 billion of us pumping out massive amounts of carbon every day there has to be some contribution and it couldn't hurt to cut it down.

If the climate-change deniers are right then as Matt suggested this is just Y2K all over again.

But if they're wrong, or even only half-right, or the truth is somewhere in between then we're in for a fun old time. Is it worth the gamble?