The conversation, Q & A and the future

Today reflecting on the Q & A program last night, a good program I’ll add, the usual drone tone of the Prime Minister replaced with answers to questions, honestly and clearly and none (but the Rudd one) refused. I was pleasantly surprised, delighted by some of the twitters and left thought provoked by others and the comment of the 80 year old gentleman who said he didn’t think he’d ever see the day when his government worked together for the community. I lay awake for some time wondering and thinking this through and a few things came to mind….

1) Would this have happening if K Rudd was still the PM? No not likely as he refused to work with the Greens (& or Independents), he made that very clear in the early days.

2) Would we have had a multi-party climate change committee if the election was clear cut? Probably NO, one arrogant party after another would have assumed the right to make a decision,  dependent on who won would be the outcome, no one would have spent the time nutting out all the detail that the MPCCC has to achieve an outcome everyone can live with …live with is the key point here.

3) Did the PM show her strengths or not last night? Yes I think she did, she answered the questions  be they hostile or friendly (although at times hard to tell)

4) Who lost last night? The Liberal party, not because of anything but their leader, I asked myself, what would be different if the Liberal Party wasn’t’ being lead by Tony Abbott, pretty much they would have been included in the MPCCC which meant they too could go down in history for participating in this historical decision/event… you think I’m over stating this, not from the twitters and comments I heard, most people feel there has been a move to all encompassing discussion, agreement if you will.

5) Was there humour, well you can’t go past the CSIRO or Alan Jones comment here, JG had fun with this and so did the audience…

So to summarise, while for a period I doubted JG as PM over K Rudd, I’m now convinced she is the better person for the job because under her leadership, (perhaps not her preferred option but the one she was dealt), The Greens and the Independents have been included in the conversations, conversations the populace wanted them included in, or they wouldn’t have voted as they did. And there was a loser, sadly the Liberal party was excluded because of their leader and his radical views, if someone like Turnbull or Hewson were leading the party heaven only knows we might have saved millions of dollars in stunts and campaigns and included a larger portion of the community to voice their opinion and have their ideas included.  I pride myself in supporting a good idea, no matter who puts it forward and I believe if you were able to ask honestly the members of the Libs if they believed and supported the science and measures to address pollution we could have had some valued debate. IMO it’s time the Liberal party accepted their mistake and took steps to rectify the situation, Mr Abbott maybe ahead in the polls for one reason, he doesn’t bother with logic, he plays, as did his predecessor, on fear and sound bite. The sky is falling rhetoric. Given honest information I have faith the people of Australia would all come to the same conclusion about doing the right thing for the planet, is it that we are a little lazy and don’t read the fine detail or the science, is it that we cling so tightly to a proposed ideal or party that we trust them to tell us the truth without checking for ourselves, or are we being played for fools by the media. Perhaps a little of each but I am comforted in that even in just this debate we have come such a long way, that there is hope that our politicians may put the ‘party’ aside and debate the important issues with one goal, bettering the lot of all Australians, the environment and the future of the whole planet.

As one of my colleagues suggested, now let s move on to the Refugee situation and work this out too!

That’s my two cents worth, how do you feel?

Advertisements

21 Responses to The conversation, Q & A and the future

  1. rogerthesurf says:

    Personally I believe that you Australians will be crazy to let your government get away with this excuse for raising taxation.

    Here is what I said in a previous comment which may be relevant.

    “Someone said “I support a carbon tax in which the 500 biggest polluters in Australia have to pay for the cost of their pollution, reflecting their impact on our environment.””

    And my answer was

    “Let me give you a brief lesson on basic economics:-

    Whether or not you think that the life giving gas CO2 is a pollutant, please be assured that the 500 biggest polluters in Australia will never actually pay a cent of tax, carbon or otherwise.
    You seem to forget that these 500 companies supply goods and services in some way to you. In otherwords, although it may be vicariously through a train of manufacture – wholesaler/distributor and retail ultimately the end user, thats you and me pay the taxation for these companies in the price we pay for their services. Especially when it is an across the board tax like this one.
    For instance, you may notice the price of fuel and food going up. That will be you paying the carbon tax. Even if you are elligible for the tax break threshold the government will need to make up that tax somewhere else, and probably create a new government department to deal with it. Where will they get this tax from? Well lets think? Print money? Well I can assure you they wont do too much of that, because inflation is not a good idea. Well they will tax rich people and companies probably owned by those rich people more. So who will pay for that? Yup you guessed it. You and I.
    Isn’t that just crap?
    Australians should run around after that funny lady and wave banners saying “tax us please, we love tax, we will always vote for you if you tax us more etc””

    Did you hear anyone describe how the tax will effect CO2 emission (as if they are a problem)? Nope because the tax will do nothing, just another excuse to waste everyones money.
    I my country we have an ETS. The leader of the opposition is already talking about how he will spend the proceeds of it. http://crasspoliticsnz.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/philgoff-and-ets.pdf

    BTW in case you don’t know it, cash from an ETS system is supposed to be spent on planting trees and buying carbon credits etc. The government supposedly should have no claim to the proceeds.”

    Just imagine what the economy will be like when your government screws things down in order to attain the 60% decrease in CO2 emissions as demanded by the IPCC!

    Worse still, there is still no scientific proof for the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis and so the whole thing is absolutely crazy anyway.

    Cheers

    Roger

    • Signe says:

      Thank you for your comment Roger, whilst I don’t agree with you I appreciate the time you’ve taken to share your view., I on the other hand believe we need to protect our planet and its inhabitants and this is a mechanism to achieve this at this time. I still however believe in debate while in this instance I believe Science is against you, you most certainly have the right to express your view. When the ETS is brought in we will see where those funds are directed but for now, the income from the Pollution tax being directed at helping those who need it and the investment in renewable energies for our future are well supported by me, all the while the govt assumes the role of protector from undue pass on of costs to the public purse. Regards Signe

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Signe,
        Thanks for your reply.

        Of course we need to protect our planet and its inhabitants. I am shocked that you assume I think otherwise.

        As a matter of fact, the science is NOT against me. The truth is that the politicians (of which ilk I will not mention) and the IPCC are against the science.
        I take it you are no scientist, but please do me the courtesy of reading my blog. Everything there is carefully documented and you do not need to be a scientist to understand it.

        If you ever studied statistics, you will know that a correlation is never a proof.

        Ironically I have studied the Global Warming literature more thoroughly than most and I know that the science is not science because there is no clear and factual process that describes the link between CO2 and Global Warming.
        Doubly ironic is that we are demonizing a gas which constiutes only .038% of the atmosphere, upon which all life on earth depends as a pollutant, at a time when there are many other real pollutants that need our attention!

        You are very vague about the projected use of the carbon tax revenues and you do not seem to have understood who actually pays the tax in reality. Please read my comment more carefully.

        “all the while the govt assumes the role of protector from undue pass on of costs to the public purse”

        For a start always think “the taxpayer” when you refer to the “public purse”. That is people like you and me. Your trust in any government to spend your money wisely is entirely misplaced. (see my link above) I think you should consider your government’s actions with a more jaundiced eye. Remember that every person in the world seeks power especially including politicians. This is why the Westminster system of government has evolved- to temper that thirst for power- the downside being that politicians will basically do anything to “earn” that elusive vote.

        Finally, yes I do care about the planet and I do also care about people. As an economist, I can clearly say that if the world obeys the exhortations of the IPCC with its CO2 emission reductions of about 60% and its wealth transfers, we will suffer an economic collapse, which will do considerable more harm to people than you have ever thought of and of course drain us of the resources needed to really look after this planet..

        I have not included any links here because it is apparent that you are not in the habit of reading them. If you wish for me to enlarge on any of the things I have touched upon here, feel very welcome to ask.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • Signe says:

        Hello again Roger, firstly I didn’t assume you didn’t care about the planet nor its people; this comes with the same request as you made of me, please read my comments carefully. I did attempt to learn more about you through your blog link however there is nothing and I could find no manner in which to find out more about you. I value people and their comments I value openness even more. The link you sent is 18mths old and contains a good degree of denialist’s cherry picking data… however a lot happens in such a long time. I have no problem with your political bias, most people have one, So to address your email comment, I did read over your post/blog, and had you read through mine you would see I’m very aware of what is paid from the public purse and who is paying it, I run a small business of my own and know firsthand how costs are paid and passed on to the end user. My comment re the protector for undue costs being passed on, refers to the ICAC who whilst not perfect managed to keep a close eye (whether jaundiced or not) on the GST impacts and I believe there will always be the morally lacking who attempt to rort any system but we need to rely on someone (or some organisation) to do this on a broader level.
        The old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is true, however there are some of us who believe the people deserve grassroots representation, someone who really does care, I heard a comment from a Pollie recently that said from his personal knowledge , 50% of our representatives are decent, caring people who work hard to achieve things for their constituents and the other 50% are plain nuts… well this may be so, it just means we need to rely very heavily on the decent, caring, hard working 50% don’t we.
        Finally there is one thing quite off putting to me as a reader, the condescension of those highly educated that those less educated are stupid.
        Thanks again for your comments.. Kind regards

  2. rogerthesurf says:

    Signe,

    Thanks again for your reply,

    I hope I have not made any ad hominem comments towards you in anyway, so there is no need to feel that I or anyone else is acting in a condescending manner towards you. On the other hand, I hope you can garner some respect for someone who has spent years of his/her life in a regime of higher learning and sacrifice, of which I assume from your comment you have not.

    I am disappointed though to have my blog page dismissed as a lot of “denialist’s cherry picking data”. This is particularly disappointing as I have taken considerable trouble to not only supply academic references, but to confine myself to actual historical facts which easily disprove the AGW theory.
    Also to use the word denialist means that you already have a prejudice when you read the blog, and already have decided not to look into the facts of the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis (upon which the excuse for this carbon tax is based).
    Yes my page is 18 mths old but the facts still remain, although some of the political figures have fallen by the wayside.

    I cannot tell you what to believe, but I can ask you to use your own mind to look at the basis of this unproven theory which is slipping into our way of life and has nothing to do with sustainability, conservation, cleaning up pollution or to soften our reliance on diminishing oil supplies.
    If the carbon tax does none of the above, then what is the use of it?
    The only thing I can see is that it will swell the govenments coffers.

    Like I said, stop trusting everyone around you and use your own mind to research what this madness is all about.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    PS. Please check out this link which I also gave above.

    http://crasspoliticsnz.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/philgoff-and-ets.pdf

    This is what our (thankfully) opposition wants to do with out ETS money, but what is more worrying is that the press and the current government did not pick up on his gross dishonesty/ignorance.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=6KhjS9PZMJvu2ALEj6CjCA&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle#

    is a great video to watch if you have an hour to spend.

    • Signe says:

      My, My, I was referring to your tone; I have many readers, all of whom bring a wealth of information, some from their education, many from their experiences. Again respect for all is what I expect on my site, again had you read through it you would be aware.

      I feel it is clear to say we will not find agreement on the need for a pollution tax, I did read through your material however remain unconvinced, the one page of information was simply insufficient and the sources quoted brought no more confidence. So in fairness I’m happy to leave your links etc for my readers to check it out themselves, I however would require considerably more accredited sources to consider changing my view.

      My argument has always been and I’ve seen no reason to change, if we can do better why don’t we? To me allowing our air and sea to be used as tips is unwarranted and enormously unfair to our grandchildren and theirs’ when we can and should simply do better.

      I am also perplexed, you mention our government however your website is a NZ site… are we talking about an Aussie issue here as you mentioned previously that your Opposition was looking to overturn it in NZ and you had written…? Both economies have similarities however I think the huge difference in population are substantial and highly impact on a carbon pollution tax.
      Have a good day,

      • rogerthesurf says:

        Signe,

        Thankyou for your reply and broad mindedness.

        I would still like to comment though seeing as how you did read and question my blog.

        Does it worry you that the world has been warmer than the present many times and a number of those times within history?

        This current warming, (if it is actually happening at all) is nothing out of the ordinary, so why should we blame it on a miniscule increase of a friendly gas in our atmosphere.
        The increase of concentration is only about 0.0213% since 1960.

        You may be interested in some facts about this gas which you are refering to as pollution.

        A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf

        Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html

        Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
        Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)

        Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
        http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
        http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf

        Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.

        Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm
        Now I may be stunning you with these facts and figures, but it is necessary to understand these thing if we are not to be treated as the sheep in Orwells “Animal Farm”.

        “To me allowing our air and sea to be used as tips is unwarranted and enormously unfair to our grandchildren and theirs’ when we can and should simply do better.”

        I absolutely agree, but carbon dioxide is simply not a pollutant. One may as well blame water for everything. It is a more powerful and abundant greenhouse gas after all.
        All we are doing is directing resources away from where they are needed!

        Yes I am commenting on the Australian Carbon Tax proposal. Because NZ does not have an upper house, the government was able to install an emissions trading scheme without any debate from a senate. The link I gave you http://crasspoliticsnz.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/philgoff-and-ets.pdf illustrates that it is simply regarded as a cash cow by politicians, and I suspect that you can expect very little better from your government.
        In other words we are there and doing it and I suggest that everyone learn from our experience.
        It is very obvious from that article, that carbon emission reduction is as far from the politicians intentions as it can be, so we are paying into this emissions trading scheme under a double fraud. The first fraud being that we were told the income from the ETS scheme would be used to purchase carbon offsets and the second is that offsets will have no effect on the climate whatsoever because the amount of emission reduction globally from the scheme will not be even measurable and AGW is the biggest fraud in history anyway.

        I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from.

        Cheers

        Roger

        http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

      • Signe says:

        Roger the point here I think is that we don’t agree on much, true Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, I don’t’ recall saying it is! The following is from a piece a friend of mine who is far more able to argue the science than I: “The whole “CO2 isn’t pollution” cop-out is propaganda by the conservative groups beholden to big industry. CO2 is a greenhouse gas – it causes an inversion effect that traps heat – and this is indisputable. It is not the most abundant greenhouse gas – that honour falls to water vapour – but the big difference is that water vapour holds in the atmosphere for days until returned as rain, whereas CO2 can only return from the atmosphere to “sinks” that extract it, and that which is not returned accumulates. The major sink is the ocean, but that has a limit on what percentage of CO2 it can absorb (and because it is absorbing more than it should have to, it is acidifying and actually having a diminished capacity to absorb). Other sinks are trees, as you say, but to affect greater absorption we would need to reverse the massive deforestation that has taken place over the last 200 years – not an easy feat, especially as trees need soil quality and water, neither of which are in abundant supply. Certainly, we only release a proportionally small amount of carbon into the atmosphere as a result of our use of resources, but it’s Euclidean – if a bathtub is full (a self-sustaining carbon-release/reacceptance system in nature) you can’t add more water without it spilling over. This is where we get the system-changing effect – apart from the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, the oceans work harder to cope; they change their nature because of carbon-saturation; the sea-life that depends on ph balance is disrupted, and the most affected are the micro-organisms that form the basis of the marine food-chain; they die, other organisms die, and the chain goes on.”
        This I understand and makes sense to me…. the rest pretty much falls under the: If we can do better, and it’s good to do better, why not do better?

        Your comment: ‘The first fraud being that we were told the income from the ETS scheme would be used to purchase carbon offsets and the second is that offsets will have no effect on the climate whatsoever because the amount of emission reduction globally from the scheme will not be even measurable’

        Presently we are speaking not of carbon tax credits, we are installing a pollution tax to encourage our worst polluters to reconsider their emissions OR PAY to support residents and provide funding for Research and development of alternative industries… our proposed CPRS or ETS is a long term matter, that all being equal will have a lot of work done on it before implemented, and with any luck as with the MPCCC it will be decided on by cross party agreement. We do have an upper house that presently has a good Greens component that will read, evaluate and adjust any anomalies or mistruths wherever they can.

        Roger it is fair to say we won’t agree on this, I’ve continued to publish your data, I continue to tell you I don’t’ agree with you and that I’m not qualified to argue the science… but many of my associates and colleagues are, however I do attempt to keep the information simple and easily accessed on my site (for my benefit and others) … I am hesitant to add, not one of my many readers has followed your links that I can see although they are there for all to access. I think I’ve given you fair and reasonable right of reply, but add from here, lets agree to disagree… neither of us are likely to change our point of view, a democratic right I will fight to the death for… have a good day.
        Signe

  3. rogerthesurf says:

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, I don’t’ recall saying it is!”

    Signe, please allow me to refer to your statement above

    “I feel it is clear to say we will not find agreement on the need for a pollution tax,”

    You are talking about the carbon tax right? The idea of the carbon tax is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore you must be including carbon dioxide in that statement! Like I have said already, I am right behind any efforts to clean up pollution, but if you do not think CO2 is a pollutant, why are you supporting this carbon tax of yours?

    Also please bear in mind one of my earlier statements “I cannot tell you what to believe, but I can ask you to use your own mind”.

    I hold very strongly to that statement. Unless we all take the trouble to do some basic research on such matters, we are open to serious influence from the unscrupulous who seek to sway us for their own purposes.

    Forgive me for pointing out that your understanding of the mechanism of global warming is a distinct oversimplification and simply not correct. “it causes an inversion effect that traps heat –”. This is what one may tell a 10 yr old.

    There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to even approach an inversion effect. Remember 0.039%? This amount is very very small.
    Current theory is that CO2 absorbs some wave lengths of solar radiation (sunshine) and therefore warms the atmosphere slightly. This is reasonably true, although exactly how much is debated. However the amount it can do this on its own is agreed to be very small indeed. However the theory (and this part is unproven) is that this warming effects the amount of water (clouds) in the atmosphere, (now water is abundant enough to have an effect) in such a way that the natural greenhouse effect of the clouds is changed. This theory has problems in that if clouds are increased, yes heat will be retained in the lower atmosphere, but also sunlight will be reflected back into space from the top of the clouds, and vice versa, if clouds are decreased, sunlight will heat the earth more, but more heat will be lost into space. The question is whether the relation between heating from CO2 and clouds causing more greenhouse effect is a positive of negative one. If it is negative, the clouds will be simply adjusting for the CO2 and there will be no warming. If it is positive global warming could be a problem. Trouble is that we have had clouds and CO2 for a very long time on earth and we have also had warmings without any increase in CO2. It would be very nice to have scientific proof for this question but even the IPCC does not have it.

    This is not my thinking so I will give you a link to support it. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/dr-roy-spencer-open-to-possibility.html Dr Roy Spencer gives the best balanced account of things I know and there are many others who agree with him.

    Signe,
    I understand you have run for political office. Good on you, but with your self admitted ignorance of AGW facts, do you really think you are qualified to judge whether any taxes or initiatives involving global warming issues are good or bad for your electorate?

    You talk about democracy, is it democratic to appropriate money from the people in your electorate and give some of it back to some of those people for whom you think need it and spend the rest on expensive and unlikely to succeed technologies? (If the technologies had potential it would be difficult to keep the unsubsidised private sector away from them.)

    I’m not saying this to be nasty or to annoy you. I have a consience and I am sure you have one too, but I would not be able to take money from people unless I have done the complete homework to assure myself that I am doing the right thing.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

    PS: You are right about no-one using the links I have left you. Nothing has showed up on my site either, which is a pity because I would have at least expected to see where you have read what I left you.

    • Signe says:

      Roger in fairness I will respond again, mostly out of courtesy, rather than a belief it will have any effect on this topic or direction of this conversation. As to what you’ve left for me, I’ve been to your site a couple of times and am yet to see anything pertaining to me including checking the cartoon to see if I’d been tagged… to that end whatever it is I’ve missed it… perhaps through the maxim that after reading such very lengthy documents perhaps not all is retained or absorbed…or simply beyond my exploration needs.I did however read until I became disinterested and/or ran out of time and as a ‘reader’ that was perhaps way more than the average.

      As to my desire to represent the people of Liverpool, that is unwavering, I don’t believe I need to be a scientist to represent them and my claim of ignorance was the finer detail of that science. I guess the same could be said of you, I put who I am out there for all to see, you however do not, I am happy for people to judge me based on what I put out there, and I make no pretence nor tell lies or hide behind pseudonyms, I am who I am… judge at your will.

  4. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi Signe, when I read your article the following items stood out.

    “ .. Would we have had a multi-party climate change committee if the election was clear cut? Probably NO, one arrogant party after another would have assumed the right to make a decision .. ”

    “ .. conversations the populace wanted them included in, or they wouldn’t have voted as they did .. ”
    “ .. the science and measures to address pollution .. ”

    Am I correct in thinking that your reference to:
    – “pollution” is really to that essential, life-supporting substance carbon dioxide?
    – “science” is IPCC style pseudo-science?
    – “measures” is the nonsense ETS?

    Assuming that I am correct then perhaps you’d like to tell us what qualifications you have that convince you the claimed “consensus” that our continuing use of fossil fuels is having any significant impact upon the different global climates. From my exchanges with politicians in the UK they have no understanding of the science to be able to make any worthwhile decision about what to do to have any impact upon whatever climate change Nature decides to throw our way. I doubt if you are any more capable.

    Reading your responses to rogerthesurf (I do wish people had the courage of their convictions and used their proper names):
    – I am sure that all three of us (and most clear-thinking individuals) recognise that it is essential that we must protect the planet, after all, we depend upon it for our survival, but humans are outstanding for their ability to use the planets resources for the benefit of the most important of species, humans. No doubt, we have made mistakes, but in general we learn from them, which is why so many of us enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle unimagined only a few decades ago. Grave injustices still need to be sorted out but I’m happy that I wasn’t around 100 years ago and I’m confident that in 100 years time the majority will be saying the same.
    – the ETS has nothing to do with protecting the planet but everything to do with collecting money from the taxpayer in order to enhance the lifestyles of a chosen few at the expense of the majority. It’s that money is power thing.
    – investment in alternative sources of energy is essential for our economic survival and the energy companies are expert in that area. They are fully aware that eventually (many many decades, if not centuries from now) of fossil fuels being exhausted and are doing the necessary research into alternatives that may eventually be competitive with fossil and nuclear. Of course they are only too happy to accept taxpayer-funded contributions to help them pay for that research.
    – “ .. govt assumes the role of protector from undue pass on of costs to the public purse ..” ah, do you earn your living from the public purse?
    – “ .. 50% of our representatives are decent, caring people who work hard to achieve things for their constituents .. ” – and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden my dear.
    – “ .. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, I don’t’ recall saying it is! .. ” so what were you talking about with your “ .. the science and measures to address pollution .. ” and “ .. the need for a pollution tax .. ” and “ .. carbon pollution tax .. ” if not climate science, ETS and CO2? I didn’t spot any others.
    – it would be helpful if “ .. a friend of mine who is far more able to argue the science than I .. ” was identified so that we can make an assessment of your friend’s competence in that area. Lots of my friends also spout nonsense about the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CAC) hypothesis simply because they have never done any real research nto the subject ans merely parrot what others have told them. We have a lot of politicians n the UK and the rest of the world doing just that.

    Must dash as she who must be obeyed is calling.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Signe says:

      Hi Pete,
      Welcome to the conversation, albeit you are a little cross and perhaps even a little aggressive in your tone, I am happy to share your info with my readers. I find it somewhat testing that you demand my qualifications when if having read my blog and not just this one thread you would know I’m an ordinary citizen who shares opinion and invites others to do the same. What happens or doesn’t happen in my city is of immense importance to me and the majority of my comments address those needs. But for the record I am certainly not a scientist, I am an avid reader and I’m not talking fiction, and I trust that other than the media, most of my sources are credible and to a reasonable extent I’ve researched that. These are my opinions, I’ve not started a conversation on the ETS, (I think Roger introduced that term) carbon is a green house gas as is water vapour, and my preference is to call our Tax a pollution tax not a carbon tax. I am however not in a position to impact on what our government decides to call pretty much anything least of all this tax. I am a firm believer that we pay way too much to our biggest polluters in the way of subsidies and they in turn have not felt the need to reduce their emissions or waste. A tax might just prompt them into action, I believe the average Aussie does their best and it’s only fair that big business does at least the same. I am aware that those same businesses are developing future technologies but the pessimist in me believes until they have made every single cent from the resources they will not produce any better technologies even if they have them already at hand. I believe we have some of the cleverest (crap word) people in our country and if we don’t harness their knowledge and avail them of the funds to produce better technologies we will lose them to country’s who do and we will then be forced to pay top dollar to buy back their knowledge in whatever form.
      The thing I think we disagree on is that I don’t feel we have the luxury to wait 100 years in the hope we’ve learnt enough and do enough to protect the planet… I think we need to start in earnest now, actually we should have really started 20-30 years ago… in a more conscious and directed way. We are not called the lucky country for nothing, to our detriment to the extent that our greed and our need to hang on ever so tightly to our luxuries is clouding our better judgement on much of these issues perhaps an understandable stance to some extent but at what cost when we really do have so much.
      Regards
      Signe

  5. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi Signe, thanks for the response. You are absolutely correct when saying “ .. you are a little cross and perhaps even a little aggressive in your tone .. ”. Please forgive me for doing that during our first exchange. My only excuse is that it is a consequence of four years of exchanging opinions with supporters of the CACC doctrine who have been unable to provide any convincing evidence in support of their belief.

    I didn’t intend my “ .. perhaps you’d like to tell us what qualifications you have that convince you the claimed “consensus” that our continuing use of fossil fuels is having any significant impact upon the different global climates .. ” as the “demand” that you interpreted it as. I was simply trying to establish beyond any doubt that you are not qualified in any scientific field involved in improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, about which Professor Barry Brook, Director of Climate Science, Adelaide University (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook) said in 2009 “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers .. ” (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

    Brook then went on to say “ .. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem ”, perhaps trying to imply that only 5% of the science is unknown. What has to be born in mind that despite bio/ecologist Professor Brook’s impressive-sounding title I can find no evidence that he has done any significant research into those process and drivers. His area of expertise appears to be in specie extinction and possible impacts of climate change, not the causes of it.

    Like you, I am “ .. an avid reader and I’m not talking fiction .. ” but I am not as trusting as you appear to be.

    Although you have “ .. not started a conversation on the ETS .. ” you appear to confirm that I am “ .. correct in thinking that your reference to: .. – “measures” is the nonsense ETS .. ” and your “ .. carbon is a green house gas as is water vapour, and my preference is to call our Tax a pollution tax not a carbon tax .. ” appears to confirm that “that your reference to: .. – “pollution” is really to that essential, life-supporting substance carbon dioxide .. ”.

    You know your industrialists and your national, state and local governments’ attitude towards managing industrial development in a manner that causes no unacceptable level of damage to the environment. If damage is permitted when it can reasonably be avoided then there must be something wrong with how such development is regulated. In the UK there are numerous examples of industrial development being done in a sympathetic manner. Many of the industrial eye-sores of the past, particularly mining, have been turned into places of enjoyment for the local population. Even Nature plays her part, an excellent example bweing a beauty spot in eastern England called the Norfolk Broads. It’s a sanctuary for wild-life and a very popular holiday area for those of us who love the outdoors but also enjoy the social amenities that humans have developed. The Norfolk Broads are the result of the mining of peat for fuel hundreds of years ago.

    Do you really think that a tax has ever prompted polluters to stop polluting? Don’t they simply pass on their costs to the poor old consumer? The ETS is simply another political scam to take more of the hard-earned money from the taxpayer but to make them feel happy by thinking they are saving the planet for their children and grandchildren.

    You believe that we don’t “ .. have the luxury to wait 100 years in the hope we’ve learnt enough and do enough to protect the planet… I think we need to start in earnest now, actually we should have really started 20-30 years ago… in a more conscious and directed way .. ” but I have little doubt that you can provide any convincing evidence to back up that statement. I suspect that all you can do is parrot what others, such as your “friend” who has advised you on CACC. I also guess that your friend is a “green”, probably a member of NSW Greens.

    Please would you advise who your “friend” is or betrter still, get her or him to engage in discussions here. After all, “to communicate is the beginning of understanding” (AT&T advert from the 60/70’s).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Signe says:

      Hi Again Pete,

      You are a demanding individual aren’t you? My friend should he choose is always welcome to respond via this site, although most of the time he tires of the denialist/argumentative approach by so many especially when those arguing are unable to be back up their argument with accredited known economists or scientists.
      You said in your previous post how ‘Reading your responses to rogerthesurf (I do wish people had the courage of their convictions and used their proper names):” I do wish people had the courage of their convictions to enlighten us all when we bother to traverse their sites to give some insight into who they are and what if any credentials they bring to the conversation… as you can see, I provide my readers a full choice of information as to who I am and what my agenda is, I looked over your site at length and could not find such information, but continuous quoting of others. At least on my site I make sure everyone is aware it is my opinion I share.
      Interesting that you finish with a quote from a major communications company, who makes millions selling fresh air… let’s hope the future provides some …
      Have a good day, regards Signe

  6. Roger says:

    Signe,

    I am going to take a chance here and suggest you read this economic study of Spain.

    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

    As you know may know, Spain is basically bankrupt.

    The thing is that they have been doing things like you are suggesting are good for your constituents, since about 1998.

    Although I am not familiar with the authors of the academic paper the methods and conclusions and Spains economic situation, are about what I would expect given Spains economic policies over the last few decades.
    Why would I expect this? Well I do not wish to sound condescending but shall we say “I have certain skills in economics”.

    In many countries, it is common for unscrupulous politicians to undertake activities which are known as “Bribing the Electorate with their own money”. This means adopting policies which you know are not good for the country and its people as a whole, but involve spending the tax payers money on a sector who will then vote for you. A good example in New Zealand would be raising the domestic purposes benefit (mainly solo mothers in this country) which would cause them to vote for you, or organising a pensioners discount card (the tax payer footing the bill) which would encourage pensioners to vote for you and so on. It is a new thing to promote a tax, which would disadvantage everyone, but a vociferous sector want instituted, who would presumably vote for whoever promoted it.
    In my first comment, I attempted to explain to you that taxing corporates, does not do anything to them in the least, especially when ALL the like corporates are going to be taxed. All they do is pass the tax onto their customers, which would be you and your contituents. Although your government may return some of that tax to “needy” people (after extacting an administration fee – read employing an army of public servants to administer who gets this – ), as a whole the poorer people will bear the brunt of this.

    I noticed you never commented on this. Can you not see the logic?

    Also here is a paper by Dr Michael Basset. You tell Peter that you read a lot of non-fiction. Well these are certainly not fiction!
    http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/articles.htm
    Michael Basset was a minister in our third labour government.
    He spent this time carrying out “social engineering policies” and now he regrets it saying ” A lifetime of watching social experiments has convinced me that growth invariably does more for people than social engineering.”
    This is serious reading by an ex Labour politician, and you should approach it with an open mind.
    Don’t worry, I do not even live in your country, so it is of no consequence to me personally what you do in your political life. My only concern is that you learn to think things for yourself rather than believing what you are told.
    Good reading.

    Cheers

    Roger
    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  7. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi Signe, that’s an interesting response of yours. It doesn’t help one little bit as far as providing any evidence to support your dfaith in the CACC doctrine but I didn’t expect any such thing from someone involved in politics, whether local, state or national. Like virtually all politicians you avoid answering the direct questions and simply waffle on about nothing of significance. Your “ .. My friend should he choose is always welcome to respond via this site, although most of the time he tires of the denialist/argumentative approach by so many especially when those arguing are unable to be back up their argument with accredited known economists or scientists. .. ” is a good example of such waffle.

    I don’t know where you get that “ .. You are a demanding individual .. ” from – dreamed up, just like your faith in CACC? My “ .. Please would you advise who your “friend” is or better still, get her or him to engage in discussions here .. ” was not a demand but a polite request – don’t you understand that “please” word? It is an “adverb 1. (used as a polite addition to requests, .. ” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/please).

    You said in your response to Roger’s first comment that a friend of yours “ .. who is far more able to argue the science than I .. ” but that tells us nothing about his credibility as an authority on the CACC hypothesis. You acknowledge that you have no understanding of the science behind the processes and drivers of the different global climates so anyone with a little knowledge of the subject would be far more able to debate the science than you. Why don’t you have a read again of the comment by Professor Brook that I quoted for your benefit.

    Your friend might like to watch the presentation made by “ .. accredited known economists .. ” Václav Klaus, President of Czech Republic, at the 10th May Conference on the Science and Economics of Climate Change held at the Howard Theatre, Downing College, Cambridge, UK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EiTA12FJjs) or his talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek4Icsz8BTo&feature=related). Better still, how about his recent tour in Australia, including his presentation at The Institute of Public Affairs special event ‘Climate Change: The Dangerous Faith’ in Sydney on July 25, 2011 Sofitel Sydney Wentworth. A video is available at the Climate Sceptics Party blog (http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/07/czech-president-vaclav-klaus-2011.html).

    Then he might like to read the excellent (not perfect, but neither is any) book (or paper or article) on CACC “Heaven and Earth” by Professor Ian Plimer. If you bothered to go to that link I gave to the quote from his Adelaide University associate Professor Barry Brook (and I somehow doubt that you bothered) you would have seen the subject of that article “Ian Plimer – Heaven and Earth” (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

    Once your friend has done that then maybe he’d be willing to present his credentials here and join in the debate, but I doubt it, because I tried to debate the subject with Greenpeace and they simply tightened their blinkers and stuck their fingers further into their ears.

    Thanks for wishing me a good day but I always do Signe. Unlike millions around the globe I’m a very lucky man, have a wonderful wife, lovely children and grandchildren, am comfortably off, no worries and am learning something new every day. What more could I ask for. I hope that you are as fortunate.

    You complained about me not providing enough information about myself on my blog (http://www.blogger.com/profile/08258973141061114628). What more would you like? If you’re really interested then you could try googling – “Pete Ridley” EMC –

    As for your final quip, don’t overlook the fact that if it wasn’t for the efforts of telecommunications companies like AT&T and technology companies like Intel you would not be enjoying spreading your propaganda to all and sundry on the Internet. That’s another of the benefits from industrialisation. Where would we be without it?

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Signe says:

      Pete, you arrogance is beyond reply… as for the benefits of communications organisations they are many, a privilege you take advantage of, albeit I won’t denigrate your opinion and right to have one, by calling it propaganda. Regards,

  8. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi Signe, I forgot to give you this link to another of those Vaclav Klaus presentations – http:/samuelgordonstewart.com/2011/07/president-klaus-address-to-the-national-press-club . It was sent to me by Pat Lightfoot, a wise lady from Armadale, New England, NSW. Give her a call and have a chat. She may help you to understand something about the “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • Signe says:

      thank you… I think both you and Roger have had sufficient time to forward your opinion, pass snide comments and share your view….

      enjoy!

  9. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi again Signe, I’ve just been advised of this piece of wonderful news http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/. It will be interesting to hear what your secret friend has to say about it.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: