environmentalist Tim Flannery targets outboards

[mudrunner]

THE lawn mower and the outboard motor are the latest targets - albeit on a small scale - in the war against climate change.

Environmentalist Tim Flannery wrote to Environment Minister Peter Garrett last month, appealing for the Federal Government to fast-track the introduction of world-standard emissions regulations for small engines.

The US and Europe already regulate marine engine emissions, The Australian reports.

Professor Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, wrote that a lawn mower generated 40 times the emissions of a car, and two-stroke outboard engines were even worse.

He said the most polluting outboard motor model in Australia - which is made in the US but cannot be sold in that country because of the tight emissions regulations - put out more than 19.6kg of greenhouse gas emissions in an hour.

According to a report prepared last year for the Department of the Environment and Water Resources, one hour of using a boat with a relatively clean engine produced the same pollution as about 50 cars operated at a similar speed.

Professor Flannery told The Australian that introducing regulations on small engines would make a minor, but necessary, improvement in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the move would cause an immediate reduction of one million tonnes a year of greenhouse gases, which he said was "not huge" but worth doing.

"In terms of air quality ... particularly in a place like Sydney, with the harbour right in the middle of the city, you'd find a significant enhancement," he said.

A spokesman for the Environment Minister said Mr Garrett had discussed the issue with Professor Flannery and was finalising a response to his letter.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24177898-11949,00.html

He is still on about CO2 being a pollutant - not much of a scientist! Didn't he recently motor down the Murray in his runabout. It had an outboard motor! He's flipped his lid! It's laughable, the bloke's a joke.

[petelaska]

I've got to agree that the bloke is a joke. how can a boat motor put out 19.6 kg of greenhouse gas emissions an hour when it would only use that much fuel in an hour? and the 50 cars running for an hour bit i think this chap doesn't mind the bull shite getting in the way of a good story, funny part is that people actually believe what he says.
Pete

[FNQCairns]

THE lawn mower and the outboard motor are the latest targets - albeit on a small scale - in the war against climate change.

Environmentalist Tim Flannery wrote to Environment Minister Peter Garrett last month, appealing for the Federal Government to fast-track the introduction of world-standard emissions regulations for small engines.

The US and Europe already regulate marine engine emissions, The Australian reports.

Professor Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, wrote that a lawn mower generated 40 times the emissions of a car, and two-stroke outboard engines were even worse.

He said the most polluting outboard motor model in Australia - which is made in the US but cannot be sold in that country because of the tight emissions regulations - put out more than 19.6kg of greenhouse gas emissions in an hour.

According to a report prepared last year for the Department of the Environment and Water Resources, one hour of using a boat with a relatively clean engine produced the same pollution as about 50 cars operated at a similar speed.

Professor Flannery told The Australian that introducing regulations on small engines would make a minor, but necessary, improvement in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the move would cause an immediate reduction of one million tonnes a year of greenhouse gases, which he said was "not huge" but worth doing.

"In terms of air quality ... particularly in a place like Sydney, with the harbour right in the middle of the city, you'd find a significant enhancement," he said.

A spokesman for the Environment Minister said Mr Garrett had discussed the issue with Professor Flannery and was finalising a response to his letter.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24177898-11949,00.html

He is still on about CO2 being a pollutant - not much of a scientist! Didn't he recently motor down the Murray in his runabout. It had an outboard motor! He's flipped his lid! It's laughable, the bloke's a joke.

Yes absolutely, he relates to plastic people over plastic problems using plastic beliefs, didn't he win Australian of the year?...plastic county.

cheers fnq

[Jeremy87]

I've got to agree that the bloke is a joke. how can a boat motor put out 19.6 kg of greenhouse gas emissions an hour when it would only use that much fuel in an hour? and the 50 cars running for an hour bit i think this chap doesn't mind the bull shite getting in the way of a good story, funny part is that people actually believe what he says.
Pete

Actually he could have come up with much larger figures if he wanted to. 19.6kg of CO2 works out to be about 7.2 litres of petrol by my reakoning. considering say yamaha for example quotes a max fuel burn of 24 gallons per hour in its 250hp 2stroke models he could have made the figure allot bigger if he wanted to spin bull shite.

[sharkcat one]

Does Anybody Know The Brand Of Outboard They Were Talking About ?

I Understand New Em Controll Laws Are Comming In 2013, How Does That Effect People With 2- Stroke Outboards. Anybody ?

[Jeremy87]

Does Anybody Know The Brand Of Outboard They Were Talking About ?

I Understand New Em Controll Laws Are Comming In 2013, How Does That Effect People With 2- Stroke Outboards. Anybody ?

I'd assume it's refering to small to mid sized old technology 2-strokes.

[FNQCairns]

What these prophets ignore for ideology is the definition of pollution, he should have used the word emissions ONLY, when relating to at least 99% of outboard use here...but he uses the words greenhouse gasses so he is full of it regardless...it's a sure fire and fast (very important) way to pigeon hole the person as nothing more than a radical.

But he is right it would make a minor difference...a difference so low as to be unmeasurable by any environmental standard...what price ideology yet again.

cheers fnq

[Lovey80]

Sorry Jeremy I am not privi to the knowelege on how fuel burns relate to CO2 emissions. So please excuse my reasoning below if it seems stupid but.

7.2 liters of fuel is less than 7.2kg of liquid as fuel is lighter than water (non sure on exact density) but lets for my point call them the same 7.2L= 7.2kg

How then by simple combusting 7.2 kg of fuel can the by product be nearly 3 times heavier than the original product? Also considering that the by product is now a gas.


Cheers Chris

[FNQCairns]

Good thought chris, I remember from uni chem classes something like a reaction can only ever be the sum of it's constituents, put far more eloquently as some thermodynamic or reaction rule or something (it's peacefull to have the option forget this stuff:))

But you are forgetting that the internal combustion engine is before all other an air pump so the added weight must have something to do with the weight of the air pumped and expeled.

Wish I understood more most of this stuff relies on a lack understanding to make it's point.


cheers fnq

[Jeremy87]

Sorry Jeremy I am not privi to the knowelege on how fuel burns relate to CO2 emissions. So please excuse my reasoning below if it seems stupid but.

7.2 liters of fuel is less than 7.2kg of liquid as fuel is lighter than water (non sure on exact density) but lets for my point call them the same 7.2L= 7.2kg

How then by simple combusting 7.2 kg of fuel can the by product be nearly 3 times heavier than the original product? Also considering that the by product is now a gas.


Cheers Chris

Petrolium is not the only product used in a combustion engine you also use oxygen which makes up most of the mass of CO2. You need to know a bit of chemistry to work it out but the maths is reasonably simple. Petrolium as we know it consists mostly of alkane chains, which is strings of carbon with hydrogen atoms occupying the free bonds. The carbon chains we use for fuel are 5-15 carbons long. Petrol that we put in our cars and boats is on average 8 carbons long. So assuming complete combustion with octane as the fuel you have the chemical equation;

2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18H2O

The molecular weight of Carbon is 12, Hydrogen is 1 and Oxygen is 16. so for 228 grams of octane you end up with 704grams of CO2.

704/228 = 3.08

19.6kgs CO2/3.08 = 6.36kgs of octane

The specific gravity of petrol is variable between 0.8kgs/l and 1kg/l. 0.82 is noramally excepted, i used a conservative 0.88.

6.36/0.88 = 7.22l

This is simplified of course, a precise calculation would take alot longer to work out and is beyond my knowledge of chemistry but for this purpose it should be sufficient.

As for the by product being a gas i'll answer it with a question. Whats heavier, a ton of lead or a ton of feathers? It doesn't matter they both weigh a ton. The volume that 19.6kgs of CO2 occupies is considerably larger than the volume of 6.36 kgs of octane occupies because of the difference in state. But none the less gas still has mass.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Mike Delisser]

But he is right it would make a minor difference...a difference so low as to be unmeasurable by any environmental standard...what price ideology yet again.

cheers fnq

Oh how I wish you were running Lenthalls Dam fnq

[Frisbee]

From Wiki Answers:

Burning one litre of Petrol releases 2.36 kg of CO2 (under the 'perfect' fuel/air mixture). I know this sounds unreasonable when one litre of petrol weighs around 0.75 kg, but the majority (over 70%) of the CO2 weight is made up of the oxygen which is consumed from the air and does not originate from the petrol.

Another (attributable) source - quotes 2.28Kg per litre of petrol in a "perfect combustion":

http://www.tenerife-training.net/Tenerife-News-Cycling-Blog/2008/03/science/how-much-carbon-dioxide-is-produced-by-driving-a-car-on-one-tank-of-petrol/

Not sure about how they came up with a figure of "one hour of using a boat with a relatively clean engine produced the same pollution as about 50 cars operated at a similar speed" but I would imagine that they could be correct in certain situations.

For example, my Verado 225hp at WOT burns something like 90 litres an hours for 65 k/h or 1.38 litres per kilometre (perhaps a tad conservative, I haven't actually run it a WOT for that long). A while ago, I had a little Peugeot 307 that would do 5 ltrs per 100 kilometres at a constant 100 kph - that works out to be 0.05 ltrs per kilometre. If we divided 1.38 by 0.05 it is 27.7 (rounded).

Clearly, if we used a bigger, less efficient engine on the boat and compared it to smaller cars we could get to the "magical" 50 car mark.

So, while this may be a statistic that is real (rather than one that is entirely made up), I don't see how you could argue sensibly in this way. People fish and use motors. They also cut their grass. I imagine that Flannery is only highlighting the issue by the use of a "shocking" statistic to get media attention.

Mind you, just because it doesn't make any sense to compare apples and oranges, don't think that a lot of people wont jump on the bandwagon.

I imagine that we would all want to see cleaner engines on our boats and in our backyards. maybe the Government can subsidise there purchase or the early retirement of less efficient engines?

Actually, that really isn't the problem is it?

The problem is that boats move through water which has a much higher level of friction than a road (if you are using wheels on the road that is - don't tow yourself down the road to prove to me that a road a higher coefficient of friction than water). So no matter how efficient your boat engine is, it is always going to use a lot more fuel than a car doing the same speed.

Many people don't drive their boats for hours though do they? They seem to motor off a ways and throw a line in (or whatever). How much fuel would the average boatie use on an outing? How would that compare to them, say, driving to Noosa in their V8?

What is efficiency to one person may not be efficient.

Frisbee Out.

[Jeremy87]

Nicely said Frisbee. Using your example the extra 22.3 car would come from the adittional fuel consumption required to get your boat up to 100km/h.

So the figures are more or less accurate, though the 50 cars figure is a bit rough, it should probably use the same horse power rating than comparing a 225hp verado with a 90hp(if that) peugeot. Anyway until someone can actually disprove that CO2 is a pollutant it's a notion worth while considering. Specially considering fuel savings etc with more efficient motor's.

[TimiBoy]

Anyway until someone can actually disprove that CO2 is a pollutant it's a notion worth while considering. Specially considering fuel savings etc with more efficient motor's.

Therein lies the point. It is incumbent on both sides to prove:

- that CO2 is a pollutant
- that CO2 is not a pollutant

Once you accept one or the other, you have chosen whether this guy is credible or not. I've read a helluva lot of material, and once I cut through the crap (statistical and emotional), I must admit to be leaning strongly to the side that it is not.

The Greenies'll try to hang me for that, they've tried before. I should point out that in my 20's I was a full on Greenie. But I'm interested in facts, and I couldn't find enough on that side that made sense. So now I am a Green thinker, but without the politics or the blinkers.

We should be focussing on the other gasses and particulants produced by internal combustion engines. There are many far more threatening chemicals being produced, that are proven pollutants, that don't seem to gather attention. But they aren't as politically sensitive, are they? And that, unfortunately, is what it's actually all about. Pity the rank and file Greenies haven't figured that out yet.

Cheers,

Tim

[FNQCairns]

Oh how I wish you were running Lenthalls Dam fnq

But the zealots would hate it:), still I dunno the place and it is fresh water - hence the 1% remainder, they may have a case but again I suspect the managers would be easily identified as zealots, unless they could make a case otherwise ...which I do doubt.

cheers fnq

[BaitThrower]

Yay, take all the outboards off Aussies while letting China burn billions of tonnes of fossil fuels without any regulation. He should go where the real problem lies and preach over there.

[Atriplex]

Therein lies the point. It is incumbent on both sides to prove:

- that CO2 is a pollutant
- that CO2 is not a pollutant

Once you accept one or the other, you have chosen whether this guy is credible or not. I've read a helluva lot of material, and once I cut through the crap (statistical and emotional), I must admit to be leaning strongly to the side that it is not.

The Greenies'll try to hang me for that, they've tried before. I should point out that in my 20's I was a full on Greenie. But I'm interested in facts, and I couldn't find enough on that side that made sense. So now I am a Green thinker, but without the politics or the blinkers.

We should be focussing on the other gasses and particulants produced by internal combustion engines. There are many far more threatening chemicals being produced, that are proven pollutants, that don't seem to gather attention. But they aren't as politically sensitive, are they? And that, unfortunately, is what it's actually all about. Pity the rank and file Greenies haven't figured that out yet.

Cheers,

Tim

What you say is very true.

Just as a point of interest what lead you in the direction of CO2 is not a pollutant.

[FNQCairns]

What you say is very true.

Just as a point of interest what lead you in the direction of CO2 is not a pollutant.

Ever seen a plant!!!::)

[Roo]

Co2 occurs naturally in the environment so one one hand you could argue that it is not a pollutant.....but excess Co2 is perhaps not so natural and could be argued to be a pollutant.....
A bit like beer.....some is good:) , more is better;) , too much and my head feels polluted:sick2:

I think the outboard tim flannery used on his great adventure down the murray was reasonably well hidden under a cover for commercial reasons for ABC TV.....but you can tell from the exhaust note it was an ETEC.

[Atriplex]

Ever seen a plant!!!::)

The increase in CO2 will not benefit plants. A green house with more CO2 creates an environment were plants are able to grow quicker, but add more CO2 to the earth's CO2 system you will imbalance the whole system. The results will not be beneficial to plants; every single ecosystem will be affected. The plants that adjust the quickest will take over: what does this mean: natural selection will just take it's course, the fittest will survive. No it will mean our natural treasures will lose their biodiversity. The places that we fish will be noticeably different, I can't imagine the places that I fish will be better because of Global Warming. Maybe Some Yellow fin Tuna will come further south, but I can't imagine the fishing will be better.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your sarcasm.

[TimiBoy]

What you say is very true.

Just as a point of interest what lead you in the direction of CO2 is not a pollutant.


AXXX, you seem to have forgotten (conveniently) you were asked to provide proof of your argument that the moon landings were faked. Do so.

You see, until you fix that little problem, that will always be the corner you fight from. I see no point in sharing my years of experience and thought with someone who suffers such a lack of credibility.

Tim

[Jeremy87]

[quote=Roo;880311]
A bit like beer.....some is good:) , more is better;) , too much and my head feels polluted:sick2:
[quote]

The intrinsic wisdom of a beer drinker, yet again, saves the day

[siegfried]

Isnt this Flannery ######## a biologist or some thing,what credability does he or his moron mates really have. The fact that he won the plastic Australian of the year is a mystery to me ,who actually votes for these people. By the way Kebby looks to be having fun in China doesnt he, I wonder if hes coming home in a row boat so his dirty great jet dont cause any more evil emissions . A left wing spazzo down the pub the other day was trying to tell me how clever Kebbin was cause he can speak chinese, I said big f$%#@n woop ,so can 1.3 billion other people.;D

[Mike Delisser]

Isnt this Flannery ######## a biologist or some thing,what credability does he or his moron mates really have. The fact that he won the plastic Australian of the year is a mystery to me ,who actually votes for these people. By the way Kebby looks to be having fun in China doesnt he, I wonder if hes coming home in a row boat so his dirty great jet dont cause any more evil emissions . A left wing spazzo down the pub the other day was trying to tell me how clever Kebbin was cause he can speak chinese, I said big f$%#@n woop ,so can 1.3 billion other people.;D

The National Australia Day Council Board is appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, they select the category winners and give their recomondations to the PM for his approval.
In the case of Tim Flannery the Scientist & environmentalist it was former PM John Howard that gave him the nod & presented him with his award.

[reidy_g]

see below.

[reidy_g]

I've been waiting 13 months on this forum for one of the leading mouthpieces on this issue to provide some evidence to support his argument. I'm still waiting. It would appear this ideology no longer needs to justify itself.

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?p=879364#post879364

[TimiBoy]

The National Australia Day Council Board is appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, they select the category winners and give their recomondations to the PM for his approval.
In the case of Tim Flannery the Scientist & environmentalist it was former PM John Howard that gave him the nod & presented him with his award.

Yep, and he should be strung up for it. Doesn't make the new guy any better.

Tim

[Gary Fooks]

Shark Cat one - if the ybring in regulations - any time from 2010 to 2014, nothing you have now will be banned.

I am surprised how many people get confuded on this question - look at the introduction of car standards - old cars werent banned

hope this helps

Gary

[siegfried]

Dead right there Timi boy , Flannery should stick to molesting platypuses not talkin sh%t about stuff he knows jack about.

[reidy_g]

I've been waiting 13 months on this forum for one of the leading mouthpieces on this issue to provide some evidence to support his argument. I'm still waiting. It would appear this ideology no longer needs to justify itself.

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?p=879364#post879364


How's those answers coming along Gary?

[siegfried]

Perhaps Flannery the goose should work on banning jet engines as well , then kev would have to stay in China , then Id think he was a good fulla instead of an academic tool.>:( Does this goose think ships ,freighters etc run on fresh air.

[Mike Delisser]

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5370606,00.jpg
Hey Siegfried, this is him here, just in case you see him crossing the road in front of your car.;)
Flannery is the one with the bald head.
;)

[siegfried]

No wuckas , all going well Ill get the pair of em......poonces;D

[Atriplex]

Yay, take all the outboards off Aussies while letting China burn billions of tonnes of fossil fuels without any regulation. He should go where the real problem lies and preach over there.
True, regulating the emissions of outboard motors in Australia will have a very small impact. But, if outboard motors were regulated worldwide the impact would be great.

Australia cannot command authority on environmental issues if it doesn't tidy up it's act at home. Our per capita emissions are ridiculous and China will be very quick to use that against us.


AXXX, you seem to have forgotten (conveniently) you were asked to provide proof of your argument that the moon landings were faked. Do so.

You see, until you fix that little problem, that will always be the corner you fight from. I see no point in sharing my years of experience and thought with someone who suffers such a lack of credibility.

Tim
Name calling , making up lies, and saying mindless things when you clearly don't know what you are talking about, won't produce much at all. Grow up!

Have you read the Wikipiedia article yet, if so what did you think? Tell me why you believe the moon landing was real and then I will telly you why I don't think it was real. Surely you should be able to debate the point?

Just to encourage you a little bit: I think you have no idea about what you're talking about and do not know how to formulate an argument. The post that I quote is a great example alone, if you actually had read a bit about Global Warming and knew your stuff you would be able to recall what books/websites etc. had influenced your opinion.

Why do I believe what I believe about Global Warming? Primarily, Tim Flannery's book: The Weather Makers The History & Future Impact of Climate Change; and David Suzuki and Holly Dressel's Naked Ape to Superspecies. But, I also read what the papers (The Age, The Australian, and sometimes the Fin Review) have to say about the environment, I know that doesn't count because they're newspapers, after all they only want to report the news.

Let's see what you can come up with. :)

[Tangles]

Geez Trippers, that was a useful post, you show me yours, then Ill show you mine stuff ::)

how about you stand up for something for once, shock us with some facts for a change, your the self appointed planet champion, how about you put up? if your best is newspapers and wiki then no-one can take you seriously..

Trippers I thought you had more ticker. I didnt want to write you off so soon,, it was so short mate... ah well..another in the washout bin...

Trippers you should pass the baton mate to someone who at least has some facts, your making the Green movement look bad, not that they need help mate.

mike

[Atriplex]

Geez Trippers, that was a useful post, you show me yours, then Ill show you mine stuff ::)

how about you stand up for something for once, shock us with some facts for a change, your the self appointed planet champion, how about you put up? if your best is newspapers and wiki then no-one can take you seriously..

Trippers I thought you had more ticker. I didnt want to write you off so soon,, it was so short mate... ah well..another in the washout bin...

Trippers you should pass the baton mate to someone who at least has some facts, your making the Green movement look bad, not that they need help mate.

mike
Yeah, crazy that debating stuff, never produces anything.

Primarily means firstly or most importantly; when I say "Primarily, Tim Flannery's book: The Weather Makers The History & Future Impact of Climate Change; and David Suzuki and Holly Dressel's Naked Ape to Superspecies," I mean to say most importantly.

I don't understand where you're coming from. It appears as though you've proven me wrong or at least said something intelligent; which you haven't of course.

That should appease you:
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html) or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html) are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/) now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060706-warming-fires.html), heat waves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-heat-waves.html), and strong tropical storms (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html), is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.
Taken from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html


You've got to love the repetition of those same old boring facts don't you. Do you really need me to repeat them!

BTW, Have you learnt what deduction means?

[TimiBoy]

"And, fighting in the no credibility corner, it's AXXX!"

You made the stupid remark.

You have failed to back it up.

It is your responsibility to do so.

Until you do so, your credibility is gone. What I have typed is more than you deserve.

Tim

[FNQCairns]

Yeah, crazy that debating stuff, never produces anything.

Primarily means firstly or most importantly; when I say "Primarily, Tim Flannery's book: The Weather Makers The History & Future Impact of Climate Change; and David Suzuki and Holly Dressel's Naked Ape to Superspecies," I mean to say most importantly.

I don't understand where you're coming from. It appears as though you've proven me wrong or at least said something intelligent; which you haven't of course.

That should appease you:
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html) or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070515-inuit-arctic.html) are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_warming/) now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998 (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html), with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060706-warming-fires.html), heat waves (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060801-heat-waves.html), and strong tropical storms (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html), is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.
Taken from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html


You've got to love the repetition of those same old boring facts don't you. Do you really need me to repeat them!

BTW, Have you learnt what deduction means?

Honest (but not that I really care) the bulk above has so many holes in it, it's been refuted one hundred times over under real science, do some research, some of what you say is entirely normal, some is due to the poor confidence level of data that was used to assume temperature by not good people, some because the terms of reference was stacked causing the not sloppy not Zealot scientists to quit in disgust at great personal cost, hopping of the the global warming gravy train.

Most falls precisely within normal variance. none relates to carbon/co2 -it cannot anyway. Some is just folly and is easy action-reaction (we know that if we kick a dog it will probably move) which is simple sense.

20 years ago we were supposed to be flooded right now. Yet nothing that is not normal variance has happened - anywhere worldwide! as per non sloppy science.

Our last dry the zealots had pegged as global warming proof, did you?? - real science didn't - the zealots did - every single one!

Read up on Kaos theory and the environment - we do not live i in a 6 foot terrarium with a komodo dragon.

It's easy to believe in a cult, but to do so a person must stay blinkered - do some research from an open eyed vantage point, weigh up the rational.

I suspect that the very moment the Zealots have some evidence that is not first and foremost based on a grade 10 text book we will hear it, so far nothing of substance has resulted and all this from a billion hours of human endeavour worldwide expressly designed to find something -anything.

We cannot help you if you do not help yourself, you are but a curiosity here without both sides of the theory to draw your rational from, we do.


cheers fnq

[Atriplex]

Honest (but not that I really care) the bulk above has so many holes in it, it's been refuted one hundred times over under real science, do some research, some of what you say is entirely normal, some is due to the poor confidence level of data that was used to assume temperature by not good people, some because the terms of reference was stacked causing the not sloppy not Zealot scientists to quit in disgust at great personal cost, hopping of the the global warming gravy train.

Most falls precisely within normal variance. none relates to carbon/co2 -it cannot anyway. Some is just folly and is easy action-reaction (we know that if we kick a dog it will probably move) which is simple sense.

20 years ago we were supposed to be flooded right now. Yet nothing that is not normal variance has happened - anywhere worldwide! as per non sloppy science.

Our last dry the zealots had pegged as global warming proof, did you?? - real science didn't - the zealots did - every single one!

Read up on Kaos theory and the environment - we do not live i in a 6 foot terrarium with a kommodo dragon.

It's easy to believe in a cult, but to do so a person must stay blinkered - do some research from an open eyed vantage point, weigh up the rational.

I suspect that the very moment the Zealots have some evidence that is not first and foremost based on a grade 10 text book we will hear it, so far nothing of substance has resulted and all this from a billion hours of human endeavour worldwide expressly designed to find something -anything.

We cannot help you if you do not help yourself, you are but a curiosity here, show us what you are made of - give us all a surprise!!

cheers fnq
Thank you for responding to my post.

So what impact does CO2 have upon the environment, does it just cause trees to grow faster? Come on, you can't just say it doesn't matter.

It's a scientific fact that Coal fired power plants produce CO2, cars cause CO2: the burning of fossil fuels creates CO2. So therefore humans have increased CO2 levels unnaturally. Does it just not matter, if so explain to me why.

It's well established now that the IPCC was edited by many governments. Do you think that they edited the report in favour of acting upon climate change or edited to conform to them wanting to continue business as usual with a few extra taxes? They reported a 90% certainty, do you reckon they inflated that figure so they could heap more taxes upon you?

I think you need to wake up to yourself!! Telling someone that they should be open minded about climate change when you're clearly not is just so idiotic. Are all Global Warming proponents zealots? Are all the people that disagree with you zealots?

[FNQCairns]

Thank you for responding to my post.

So what impact does CO2 have upon the environment, does it just cause trees to grow faster? Come on, you can't just say it doesn't matter.

It's a scientific fact that Coal fired power plants produce CO2, cars cause CO2: the burning of fossil fuels creates CO2. So therefore humans have increased CO2 levels unnaturally. Does it just not matter, if so explain to me why.

It's well established now that the IPCC was edited by many governments. Do you think that they edited the report in favour of acting upon climate change or edited to conform to them wanting to continue business as usual with a few extra taxes? They reported a 90% certainty, do you reckon they inflated that figure so they could heap more taxes upon you?

I think you need to wake up to yourself!! Telling someone that they should be open minded about climate change when you're clearly not is just so idiotic. Are all Global Warming proponents zealots? Are all the people that disagree with you zealots?

Fast! -You got me when I was still editing.

pink: The carbon cycle is quite well understood at this level, you need to read up on it, I cannot fill those blank spaces - the science first not the zealot's rational - always science first.

\Be assured once you understand the cycle at least a little bit the carbon threat soon disappears, the Zealots divining of magical properties to co2 only fool the foolish, the greenhouse Zealot's have NOTHING else to prop them up, it's a house of cards, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. read up on it.

Orange:Better to do the study outlined in pink and get back me why at the levels cited worldwide (remember rational before everything else) could ever be a cause for real concern. Remember the earth's complexes are FAR more involved than the environment of a terrarium.

Blue: So.. when does a report become a report?? do the research and find out what the confidence levels of the data use were, find out what forces went into deciding which figures to use.
Much data was ignored -why where the honest scientists pissed off? -you will not find out why on zealots websites. do real research.

Green: mate I look at you as a flat-earther, a Scientologist or any number of emotion before competent reasoning causes, or just plain simple - sorry but the level of your replies amount to rhetoric with no substance outside of it. Educate yourself outside of the zealot's mantra, cause and reaction is typical ....remember....... why is it so??

cheers fnq

[Local_Guy]

Firstly, your biggest mistake is trusting and beleiving everything the government has to say. The biggest thing the g'ment likes using is statistics.... 90% certainty... they make things sound worse than they are. The g'ment won't edit reports to suit their needs, they just pick things out that sound bad and go with them for "the greater good". pfffttt.

If your worried about global warming, what about global freezing. Greenland use to be inhabited by the Vikings, but they moved on because of global freezing and couldn't adapt. Greenland is now reverting back to it's natural self of being a lush farmland and "green". Now for those zealots out there that say this is because of global warming are very narrow minded. They only want to look at that "statistic" (oh i said it again) and come straight to the conclusion that the world "must" be warming up and this is the consequence.

AN ACTUAL FACT is that the figures the g'ment are using are based on data 7+ years ago when we hit a warm patch in the generation. Since then things have actually cooled down... but the g'ment being the g'ment and acting on things years too late, they won't get this information for another 5 years.

CO2 does not matter. NOt sure of his name, but the guy who reported on global warming then changed his point on view from actual facts even said that if CO2 was a major problem then they would have seen a huge area of CO2 or a hole above the ozone layer above the equator, but there is not. so clearly CO2 is not affecting the climate like you seam to think it is.

for god sakes, it's a natural component in the creation of life and life on this planet as we know it.

tell me "How is CO2 bad"?????????

[Tester63]

Honest (but not that I really care) the bulk above has so many holes in it, it's been refuted one hundred times over under real science, do some research, some of what you say is entirely normal, some is due to the poor confidence level of data that was used to assume temperature by not good people, some because the terms of reference was stacked causing the not sloppy not Zealot scientists to quit in disgust at great personal cost, hopping of the the global warming gravy train.

Most falls precisely within normal variance. none relates to carbon/co2 -it cannot anyway. Some is just folly and is easy action-reaction (we know that if we kick a dog it will probably move) which is simple sense.

20 years ago we were supposed to be flooded right now. Yet nothing that is not normal variance has happened - anywhere worldwide! as per non sloppy science.

Our last dry the zealots had pegged as global warming proof, did you?? - real science didn't - the zealots did - every single one!

Read up on Kaos theory and the environment - we do not live i in a 6 foot terrarium with a komodo dragon.

It's easy to believe in a cult, but to do so a person must stay blinkered - do some research from an open eyed vantage point, weigh up the rational.

I suspect that the very moment the Zealots have some evidence that is not first and foremost based on a grade 10 text book we will hear it, so far nothing of substance has resulted and all this from a billion hours of human endeavour worldwide expressly designed to find something -anything.

We cannot help you if you do not help yourself, you are but a curiosity here without both sides of the theory to draw your rational from, we do.


cheers fnq
Some are part of the cult of climate sceptics. Some of us are in the cult of humans worried about the survival of the species. The argument is a bit like religious debate. My cult is right yours is wrong.
But here is the rub,...neither can be 100% sure. So what if we are right. Can you afford to do nothing?? What is the harm in being more aware of our carbon footprint, or our pollution.
We all love to fish and love the outdoor life. We love clean water and clean air. That is to say we care about our natural environment. Yet, (and this is the confusing bit) you slag off at Greens. Their message is the same as yours, ie we love our natural environment and want to preserve it. What is that about?. Are you getting caught up in party political rhetoric and missing the message??
Its a mystery.
BTW, some nice tailor off the rocks at Lennox this morning.

[Roo]

The Sixty Minutes story was certainly interesting.
Just one little point. Can you actually make Co2? or is a case of releasing Co2 when you burn petrol. I remember something from school about not being able to destroy or create these elements but only change their state.

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=614370

[siegfried]

How the f#$@ would flannery knw S*&% from sixpence tripper, I am sure this tool is /was a biologist-Where does he get his info, NASA etc ,mobs you dont believe etc. 2 things are certain though- Flannerys making a good living peddelling this sh%^ as are alot of other people. And me, well I dont know but there are some (lots of) eminent people out there with more credibility then him that dont entertain the whole GW theory (and it is only a theory). I have visions of you growing up and living with Al Gore and Flannery in a house in Waco texas. Or maybe youll just get educated get job be in debt up to your arse like the rest of us and be too busy feeding kids to worry about this rot. Me Im gonna burn as much diesel and catch as many fish as I can before I cark it;D Aint voying for Keb niether:P

[Grunter71]

Read an article a while ago about CO2 emissions and highlighted how much CO2 is emitted when a volcano erupts. Puts all our cars, boats and power stations to shame.

[Atriplex]

Read an article a while ago about CO2 emissions and highlighted how much CO2 is emitted when a volcano erupts. Puts all our cars, boats and power stations to shame.
That's probably quite true.

I wonder what happened after that natural surge in CO2 levels. Can anyone guess?

[siegfried]

Yes but they conviniently neglect to mention things like that and when the other side tries to make valid points in regards to natural changes they are condemed by left wing pollies and zealots alike. Probably because even they wouldnt be game to impose a tax on nature and the Flannerys etc would be lining up outside centrelink next monday ;) Dinosaurs may have had outboards, perhaps tripper is right

[PinHead]

from the UN..the biggest GG (so called) release is methane..from bovines.

[FNQCairns]

Here is the link to the transcript from the chat page with the good Dr David Evans. He will be remembered long after he has been crushed by the zealot machine. Tim Flannery should give this bloke the his award.

Anyway there is enough research material here to make even the most organised zealot's face red if they follow it up - but only if they admit honesty.

The green groups will not utter his name lest they need to justify why......

This is not just one mans opinion, this is simply where we are at on co2 and global warming , understood for years, just hushed, no longer covered completly up.

Expect more and more truths to gain acceptance as time progresses, it takes time to ruin a good story.

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=616122


cheers fnq

[CB77]

Gee whiz, first its our moreton bay fishing grounds now they want our outboards too.

Soon we will be rowing bath tubs in the puddles when it rains.

I reckon this Tim Flannery bloke would be one of those typical beaurocrats that whinges about the enviroment but then drives home in his fuel guzzling mercedes, probably sends 50,000 letters each year equivelant to 500 trees worth of paper, probably uses enviromentally harmful cleaning agents and leaves his office lights on 24/7.

I am all for the enviroment & preservation but lets start with things that are really useful and achievable such a revegetating / planting ex farmland that is no longer viable to farm, getting government agencies to streamline and plan their use of resources etc ( for example 1 yr they will build a road, two years latter they rip it up and build two lanes, wasted money, energy and resources, this list goes on and on dont get me started with govenment inefficiencies.)

Giving better rebates for solar retro fits and back companies to be able to produce energy efficient products at reasonable prices.

These outboards they are talking about would have to be a minority usage? and most proably used once a month. Most guys buying new boats/motors are looking for economy and the likes of 4 strokes anyway.

I dont often see a lot of bad smoking two strokes at the ramp like we did 10yrs ago.

[CB77]

When will someone introduce "Open Season" on Beaurocrats?

[TimiBoy]

I am all for the enviroment & preservation but lets start with things that are really useful and achievable such a revegetating / planting ex farmland that is no longer viable to farm, getting government agencies to streamline and plan their use of resources etc ( for example 1 yr they will build a road, two years latter they rip it up and build two lanes, wasted money, energy and resources, this list goes on and on dont get me started with govenment inefficiencies.)

Giving better rebates for solar retro fits and back companies to be able to produce energy efficient products at reasonable prices.




Too true, but unfortunately if they put in infrastructure before we need it, the Opposition gets up and accuses them of wasting money, and it costs them votes. Why? Because the average voter is a visionless twit who can't see his nose let alone what's really happening in the world.

Governments should have much longer terms in office, so they could make decisions on the basis of "good science and good economics", not "what will slip us through for the next election."

Better yet, take the right to vote away from the mugs who check their brains in at the bedside table when they get up in the morning.

And now, punching out of the Green corner, it's AXXX, with the mighty combination of "The Peuce Glove of Incredibility" on the left hand, and the "Green Glove of IcansaywhatIwantbutyouhavetoprovemewrongnotmeprove meright" on the other.

For God's sake, it's round nine, someone knock him out? Pretty hard to knock someone out when their head's full of sand though...

Tim

[mod5]

from the UN..the biggest GG (so called) release is methane..from bovines.

Good grief you aren't looking at taking on the Bovines as well as the Greenies

FQMbXvn2RNI

[siegfried]

We all know the biggest producers of hot air and bullshit are the UN but ay

[PinHead]

[quote=mod5;882581]Good grief you aren't looking at taking on the Bovines as well as the Greenies
quote]

LOL...that is why I have a big barbecue..to try and eat as many as possible...and I have the gut to prove it.

[PinHead]

Giving better rebates for solar retro fits and back companies to be able to produce energy efficient products at reasonable prices.

.

I went to the Ekka..asked soem bloke at the Govt smart house..low energy use and all that and he did not have the faintest idea about sloar power. I also asked some sales bloke at another stand about solar power for my house..his answer..I don't think you can do it on your house. So much for the alternative energy market...they are really on the ball.

[Grunter71]

That's probably quite true.

I wonder what happened after that natural surge in CO2 levels. Can anyone guess?

I am going to guess not much happened. Are you going to tell me different?

[CB77]

I went to the Ekka..asked soem bloke at the Govt smart house..low energy use and all that and he did not have the faintest idea about sloar power. I also asked some sales bloke at another stand about solar power for my house..his answer..I don't think you can do it on your house. So much for the alternative energy market...they are really on the ball.

Thats right, they have no idea about the progress being made in solar, you can do a return to grid system in most homes for $15k-20k.

New solar technolgy coming out to be a lot more efficient, i think called slither solar panels ( instead of one big solar window on panel they are cut into thousands of slithers to give more surface area).

A mate of mine is disconected from the public mains and runs a massive battery and solar setup cost him $60k 5 years ago.

[PinHead]

Thats right, they have no idea about the progress being made in solar, you can do a return to grid system in most homes for $15k-20k.

New solar technolgy coming out to be a lot more efficient, i think called slither solar panels ( instead of one big solar window on panel they are cut into thousands of slithers to give more surface area).

A mate of mine is disconected from the public mains and runs a massive battery and solar setup cost him $60k 5 years ago.

Therein lies another problem..how many people would want to spend 60k on something like that and I wonder how many of these systems comply with the BCA???

Most homes but apparenbtly not mine...and i would also like to know when the break even point is on that 15-20k outlay???

It is like inverter air conditioners..biggest con job going..break even is a minimum of 8 years.

[Mike Delisser]

from the UN..the biggest GG (so called) release is methane..from bovines.

1st you drive most of the "Greenies" off these pages Greg now I see you've set your sights on the poor old cows, you are a cranky old bugger. There seems to be plenty of sheep so I expect they'll be next.;)

[Atriplex]

And now, punching out of the Green corner, it's AXXX, with the mighty combination of "The Peuce Glove of Incredibility" on the left hand, and the "Green Glove of IcansaywhatIwantbutyouhavetoprovemewrongnotmeprove meright" on the other.

For God's sake, it's round nine, someone knock him out? Pretty hard to knock someone out when their head's full of sand though...

Tim
HAHAHAHA

You make no sense at all.

Grunter: Just did a bit of research and found this: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72

This covers the objection quite well I think. And there is an interesting debate to follow.

It would seem that your average volcano would have a very minimal impact. Just as a point of interest does anyone know how much CO2 would be emitted after a volcanic eruption.

[mod5]

1st you drive most of the "Greenies" off these pages Greg now I see you've set your sights on the poor old cows, you are a cranky old bugger. There seems to be plenty of sheep so I expect they'll be next.;)

Well listening to sheep is about as interesting as the arguments pro and con for Global Warming so lets not rule the sheep out. ::)

swrLCQz-EaI

[FNQCairns]

Read an article a while ago about CO2 emissions and highlighted how much CO2 is emitted when a volcano erupts. Puts all our cars, boats and power stations to shame.

Was that on co2? I suspect not if it was before the paranoia because co2 is a non event as a greenhouse gas, I suspect but do not know they may have been talking about greenhouse gas in total emitted during eruption.

From my studies years ago which thankfully was without political/radical influence it was science and nothing but understanding the science behind what drives the environment, mankind has but a minor impact upon total greenhouse gas emissions, we pail to something like 6% of the total, just the greenhouse gas emitters in Antarctica ONLY put the human race to shame.
You will need to check my facts here it's been a long while and I don't really have the interest to do it myself mainly because I have wasted enough of my life chasing up each absurd global warming claim or 'threat' without a single one of them even coming close to justifiable.

I think I have said it before on Ausfish, plug just one antarctic greenhouse emmiter and we (from the zealots point of view) have just saved the entire globe from a fate worse than death.....or have we::)

cheers fnq

[frogfuzz]

"It would seem that your average volcano would have a very minimal impact"
As will Rudderless' Carbon tax on "global warming". Apart that is, from making life a misery for the average income earner. Its all but a socialist money making scam. I'll believe in man made global warming when the zealots can tell me:
1) Why the temp on Mars has increased (what CO2 are the Martians pumping out?). Just goole National Geographic Temp. on Mars and you will probably find the article.
2) Why the Vikings grew veggies on Greenland.
3) What cars did the dinosaurs drive? There was climate change back then, there will be climate change in the future.
4) I'm no scientist, but since when is carbon "pollution" as per the government ads (paid for by my tax dollars)? Don't plants thrive on the stuff? If its sooooooooo polluting, then I wish Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, and P Garret would lead by example and stop breathing the stuff out of their lungs!
5) Why is this crap being taught as "fact" in Social Studies, when there is a truck load of highly qualified Phd's out there who disagree with the "consensus"?
It’s a total con by the ALP. If they implement this tax and there is a weather disaster they can say "see, it would have been worse without our tax". If there is no weather disasters in the future they will say, "see our carbon reduction scheme is working". Absolute con, and I cannot believe people are swallowing it. Some people deserve to be poor/ripped off.

[FNQCairns]

"It would seem that your average volcano would have a very minimal impact"
As will Rudderless' Carbon tax on "global warming". Apart that is, from making life a misery for the average income earner. Its all but a socialist money making scam. I'll believe in man made global warming when the zealots can tell me:
1) Why the temp on Mars has increased (what CO2 are the Martians pumping out?). Just goole National Geographic Temp. on Mars and you will probably find the article.
2) Why the Vikings grew veggies on Greenland.
3) What cars did the dinosaurs drive? There was climate change back then, there will be climate change in the future.
4) I'm no scientist, but since when is carbon "pollution" as per the government ads (paid for by my tax dollars)? Don't plants thrive on the stuff? If its sooooooooo polluting, then I wish Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, and P Garret would lead by example and stop breathing the stuff out of their lungs!
5) Why is this crap being taught as "fact" in Social Studies, when there is a truck load of highly qualified Phd's out there who disagree with the "consensus"?
It’s a total con by the ALP. If they implement this tax and there is a weather disaster they can say "see, it would have been worse without our tax". If there is no weather disasters in the future they will say, "see our carbon reduction scheme is working". Absolute con, and I cannot believe people are swallowing it. Some people deserve to be poor/ripped off.


Yeah this really bothers me, I have a daughter who will one day be forced fed this dogma, I will be forced to allow it or she will be punished/victimised for speaking truths....fair dinkum is this a free country or what!
I guess it's as free as any country that doesn't have freedom of speech in law or protected by law.

Only hope is the scales of contempt and absurdity balance by the time she needs to be treated with respect as an individual by the authorities, time is running out.

cheers fnq

[Atriplex]

Was that on co2? I suspect not if it was before the paranoia because co2 is a non event as a greenhouse gas, I suspect but do not know they may have been talking about greenhouse gas in total emitted during eruption.

From my studies years ago which thankfully was without political/radical influence it was science and nothing but understanding the science behind what drives the environment, mankind has but a minor impact upon total greenhouse gas emissions, we pail to something like 6% of the total, just the greenhouse gas emitters in Antarctica ONLY put the human race to shame.
You will need to check my facts here it's been a long while and I don't really have the interest to do it myself mainly because I have wasted enough of my life chasing up each absurd global warming claim or 'threat' without a single one of them even coming close to justifiable.

I think I have said it before on Ausfish, plug just one antarctic greenhouse emmiter and we (from the zealots point of view) have just saved the entire globe from a fate worse than death.....or have we::)

cheers fnq
A non event as a greenhouse gas am I missing something here? Since when has CO2 become meaningless environmentally?

Are you referring to methane clathrates? What are the Antarctic Greenhouse emmiters?

[reidy_g]

A non event as a greenhouse gas am I missing something here? Since when has CO2 become meaningless environmentally?

This article may give some additional perspective.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511 (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4511)

The foundation of science is to challenge assumptions/hypotheses. It is imprudent to assume such a new and imprecise theory as human-induced climate change is conclusive and that the findings of the IPCC are statements of fact, regardless of how many scientists are involved. When I hear statements from national leaders that human-induced climate change is now beyond debate it concerns me greatly. We are not at consensus science by a long stretch and it would be in a dangerous situation if we were ever to be so. All of us, believers and non-believers of human-induced climate change need the courage to question the assumptions being made. The "Emperor's new clothes" is a fable that immediately springs to mind.

The "cost of not acting on climate change" is specious reasoning; banning 2 stroke engines in the interests of climate change is specious reasoning, if the assumptions it is based on are flawed. There is strong evidence to suggest they are. Prudent science demands this evidence be given the same consideration. Those who have already declared their position in favour of human-induced climate change are unlikely to do this...publicly anyway. No one wants to be that emperor.

[TimiBoy]

The "cost of not acting on climate change" is specious reasoning; banning 2 stroke engines in the interests of climate change is specious reasoning, if the assumptions it is based on are flawed. There is strong evidence to suggest they are. Prudent science demands this evidence be given the same consideration. Those who have already declared their position in favour of human-induced climate change are unlikely to do this...publicly anyway. No one wants to be that emperor.

I looked up "specious" - it's a lovely word!

"apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false." Deceptively attractive in appearance." Collins English Dictionary.

Cheers,

Tim

[siegfried]

I dont tink this site is made up primarily or anti green climate change sceptics or right wing nutters but normal everyday hard working people who would like to enjoy what time we have left to go about our traditional Aussie existance without these turds trying to ban or tax every thing we hold dear. If whats been posted on here is any indication then the big lie may be sterting to unravel. The next federal election will be make or break time for this country , Id like to see the little weasel get punted ,as wll as cruhing his oversize ego it will send a loud clear message to both sides that the average Australian is no longer easily fooled and if they continue to peddle this shit their time in office is limited ,remember they work for us. Lookind at the general opinion overall Kev may not be around to collect a long sevice award as PM. My apologies if I sound like liberal zealot because Im not but Ive got a real derry on this mob cause I can see no good coming for this country if they continue down this path. Cheers fullas.

[FNQCairns]

A non event as a greenhouse gas am I missing something here? Since when has CO2 become meaningless environmentally?

Are you referring to methane clathrates? What are the Antarctic Greenhouse emmiters?

Yeah co2 is next to meaningless environmentally (caveats apply, plants need it etc), it has specific properties, those properties don't change simply because a clan of red necks with access to film archives decided it would make good theory to dupe other with.

Look up the power of crystals, from memory it all started when a scientist for a joke submitted a paper full of fantasy. He was making the point that the average person will believe anything that is presented as true, it says lots.

I dunno like I said I check my facts, my context could be out I am done with investigating null claims, nothing understood 20years in good basic science has changed, it's good if you are searching the around the riddle with open eyes.

If you are searching, volcanoes are next to non events, they have the power to alter the average temps we as human beings could be jealous of, although the earths heat budget is self righting, ying and yang, input/output although it all takes time, the inputs needed to drasticly change it over an extended term is mind boggling -co2 just hassn't got that ability without a multi fold increase in short time.

Look for aerosols (not so much in the context we have heard about them over the years on the radio), water, sulphur products and halogens all emitted, most if not all of these have very real and lasting effect on the heat budget within atmospheric science, it's about radiation and incident radiation V particle size/molecule size, co2 fails badly. if I remember correctly no I was not thinking of clathrates (they are captured complexes? that can be released?) anyway look more toward the basic atmospheric sciences, sorry I cannot remember specificly what are the Antarctic emmiters undersea (clathrates?) or terrestrial

cheers fnq

[Frisbee]

Therein lies the point. It is incumbent on both sides to prove:

- that CO2 is a pollutant
- that CO2 is not a pollutant

Once you accept one or the other, you have chosen whether this guy is credible or not. I've read a helluva lot of material, and once I cut through the crap (statistical and emotional), I must admit to be leaning strongly to the side that it is not.


Tim

By most accounts carbon dioxide is not a pollutant per se. When we talk about say, air pollutants, we normally mean such things as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides.

Carbon dioxide is widely accepted as being a contributor to rising global temperatures hence the term Greenhouse Gas. The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005 lists carbon dioxide and five other gases (for reduction).

There is a lot of real scientific research which links increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide to rises in average temperature over long periods of time. Yes, I know that most of the studies over the past 50 years have been subject to some criticism but the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that there is a real relationship between increases in CO2 and global temperatures.

Having said that, I'll still be using my boat to go fishing :D

Fris Out

[PinHead]

By most accounts carbon dioxide is not a pollutant per se. When we talk about say, air pollutants, we normally mean such things as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides.

Carbon dioxide is widely accepted as being a contributor to rising global temperatures hence the term Greenhouse Gas. The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005 lists carbon dioxide and five other gases (for reduction).

There is a lot of real scientific research which links increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide to rises in average temperature over long periods of time. Yes, I know that most of the studies over the past 50 years have been subject to some criticism but the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that there is a real relationship between increases in CO2 and global temperatures.

Having said that, I'll still be using my boat to go fishing :D

Fris Out

cfc's..now there was another sham perpetuated on the masses at great cost.
Amazing how the substitutes have a supposed higher global warming value than the banned cfc's...but these are quite okay to use.
The entire green movement seems to operate in ways similar to that Senator McCarthy...just believe and act on what you perceive to be the truth and totally ignore any other evidence to the contrary.

[FNQCairns]

Perhaps we need a sequel called "an inconvenient truth 2" :):) How does one pull the flat earthers into what science now knows, it was ok but pathetic to force science to play catchup with such a wild initial assumption but with thanks to the quality of modern remote sensing and targeted investigation we are now at a point that cannot be denied except under more ideology simply for ideology.

Curious to know 'what' if anything would make a current and past believer in the global warming scam to dump the rhetoric and move on.??

cheers fnq

[reidy_g]

I looked up "specious" - it's a lovely word!

"apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false." Deceptively attractive in appearance." Collins English Dictionary.

Cheers,

Tim

I know. It took me hours to find it!!!;) ;)

[Atriplex]

Curious to know 'what' if anything would make a current and past believer in the global warming scam to dump the rhetoric and move on.??

cheers fnq
To prove that CO2 does not have any negative impact environmentally, to prove that 6,000,000,000 people don't have any impact upon the environment; and to prove that an increase in population is sustainable.

A question directed to everyone: if you indeed believe Global Warming is not happening right now do you believe it is at all possible? Could we increase the population to say 10,000,000,000 and still the Earth's systems would not change?

[mowerman]

There is a view very popular among amateurs in science that it is only necessary to have a “theory” in order to revolutionize science.
“Theories” by themselves are nothing but intellectual amusement and to become more than that they must be supported by observations.
Observations that not only support the theory, but they must destroy current or opposing theories.
Science has rules. Rules that have been strictly applied for over 400 years and the results attained are ample evidence that the rules must be followed.

You have a theory. You collect your data. The overwhelming majority of the data does not support your theory. Change your theory.

Climate change. Collect your data. A small minority agrees with your theory. Disregard the majority and hey “ Ive discovered a new scientific fact”.

There is a general rule that must be understood by science revolutionaries. You must thoroughly know that which you hope to supplant.
And the big one.
Do not profess to be an expert on matters outside your chosen discipline. Amazing how many biologists, economists, mowermen claim to be climate change experts.

Leave that to the climate scientists. No way, show me the money.

Last word. Study history.
When the revolution is over, doesn’t matter which side wins, who are the first ones lined up against the wall.







Rod

[bennyboy]

It never ceases to amaze me what an ignorant bunch of people fishermen are. I imagine half of the people here still throw their bait bags over the side.

Can anyone who is serious about enjoying the environment, where they spend their leisure time not have to agree that stoping the sale of motors that pump out hydrocarbons (unburnt oil) and various other baddies way worse than CO2 into the water isn't a good thing. 4 stroke and some DI 2 stroke motors are over 10 times cleaner than old 2 stroke technology.

Can anone who is serious about catching fish argue that that isn't a good thing?

[FNQCairns]

To prove that CO2 does not have any negative impact environmentally, to prove that 6,000,000,000 people don't have any impact upon the environment; and to prove that an increase in population is sustainable.

A question directed to everyone: if you indeed believe Global Warming is not happening right now do you believe it is at all possible? Could we increase the population to say 10,000,000,000 and still the Earth's systems would not change?


OK so global warming fraud and co2 is just a convenient way of duping all the Neanderthals who already know all about the state of true pollution and population into doing something MORE to a degree that the brightly enlightened find acceptable - I am getting it?.

Here is an interesting kids game, it in effect tells me that to save the Globe I should have killed myself near 15 times already...I scored 2.6, might hit 3.0 at a stretch.

If kids and the unstable do not have enough to deal with already - enough trying to make those that cannot protect themselves feel guilty over nothing of substance, these zealots don't even have an underbelly!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

cheers fnq

[Tangles]

Atrippers,

Some pretty big words there.. 'Global Warming'... how about you define it for us?

the way you carry on, your earth planet uptopia would be a planet without humans , its getting to the stage where if a bloke farts CARBON TAX?.. a cow... well just go right ahead;D Its a bit selective ?

Bit like the dugong debacle, 1 1/2 dugong deaths a year in Moreton Bay generates howls of protest from the greenies media, the cafe mob etc , and is used as an excuse to proffer and validate green zones as we are destroying the Dugong population, yet according to the same people its OK for islander communities to take 1200+, Just check out all the government stats on it Atripper for yourself.

Why? apparently its their culture yet I wonder how many are using modern techniques etc. Funny how in our educated politically correct world we still make such distinctions, ie who is educated and not? because that is really what that distinction is all about isnt it. Again that is political correctness at its worst, to put it bluntly, Greenie dogma in this instance says an educated society who somehow cause the death of one dugong are putting at risk the very survival of the dugong population, yet native islanders who take 1200+ arent. as its OK as we say so.. So if the dugongs are at risk as the Greenies state, why are they so silent on the big numbers taken up north?

A bit selective? The dugongs are at risk or they are not? or are they cuddley creatures which pull on the publics heartstrings and therefore exploited by the Green political machine? a bit like we are all doomed by your human impact argument.

A bit selective? Why? political correctness, but political correctness doesnt allow us to question that does it and nor does political correctness have anything to do with common sense and reason.

A complete nonsense for me, so why dont Greenies, our self proclaimed earth and animal saviours jump up and down about the dugong take up north if they are so endangered? you cant because youve signed up to a set of political dogmas and sheep like, you blindly follow a party line and no doubt Atrippers you will call me a redneck for saying it. But i reckon the Greenies are the biggest rednecks of all.

Makes a bit of a nonsense of the dugong issue doesnt it, but the facts are always conveniently ignored arent they.. which doesnt actually say a lot about how much the greenies really care about the dugongs as they are only used for a political agenda.


FNQ, The next special should be called 'CONVENIENT IGNORANCE' and to turn a Greenie around would be harder than a Rabbitohs supporters changing their stripes;D

PS ; Proposed Green Zones dont ban Greenies either do they or eco exploitation of the area, ie eco-tours etc, but if you have a line and a hook well your a planet terrorist.

Atrippers, the Greens are all about votes and power not the planet. And theres the small local issue of the 2nd Airport runway , no doubt you fully support it.

mike

[Atriplex]

OK so global warming fraud and co2 is just a convenient way of duping all the Neanderthals who already know all about the state of true pollution and population into doing something MORE to a degree that the brightly enlightened find acceptable - I am getting it?.

Here is an interesting kids game, it in effect tells me that to save the Globe I should have killed myself near 15 times already...I scored 2.6, might hit 3.0 at a stretch.

If kids and the unstable do not have enough to deal with already -the enviromental heretics trying and make them feel guilty over nothing of substance, these zealots don't even have an underbelly!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

cheers fnq
Yes you're top most paragraph is quite clear and precise and to the point and it makes great sense perfect sense and not very long-winded I think you do understand it and are getting it I'm glad I'm getting through to you so quickly but I don't actually understand what you actually said because it was not very precise or clear or....;)

About the "kids" game I actually think it's great it explains the situation in terms that most of the people on this forum would be able to understand. Take for example the definition of Global Warming:

"Global warming is a term used to describe the increase in temperatures across the world over the last century.
The earth's average temperatures have crept up by about half a degree Celsius in the last hundred years, making the twentieth century the warmest of the millennium.
According to the CSIRO (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/gh_faq.htm#gh17), Greenhouse gases are the main reason we're enjoying the balmiest weather since Jesus was in short pants.
Greenhouse gases have a reputation as being the bad boys of the atmospheric playground, but they actually make our existence possible, by keeping our planet warm enough to sustain life.
The real problem is what we call the enhanced greenhouse effect. This is what we get when we produce too many greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide, methane) by burning fossil fuels, which pushes the greenhouse effect into overdrive."

[CB77]

It never ceases to amaze me what an ignorant bunch of people fishermen are. I imagine half of the people here still throw their bait bags over the side.

Can anyone who is serious about enjoying the environment, where they spend their leisure time not have to agree that stoping the sale of motors that pump out hydrocarbons (unburnt oil) and various other baddies way worse than CO2 into the water isn't a good thing. 4 stroke and some DI 2 stroke motors are over 10 times cleaner than old 2 stroke technology.

Can anone who is serious about catching fish argue that that isn't a good thing?

I think you may have missed the point most of the blokes here have been trying to make. I dont think anyone here is complaining about polluting engines / vehicles being banned.

My beef is they are making a big fuss over engines which probably contribute two fifths of f#@@ all to Global warming or pollution in general.

They go to great lengths to fabricate evidence when they should be looking and working on & putting political pressure on far worse contributers to the problem.

Most guys these days are buying outboards that are ecomomical and less pollutin g & most boats dont get to see the water regulary anyway, its not like where all driving to work everyday with our oil burning outboards.

The fact is these greenies are just looking for a win, if they get these outboards banned then they can tell all their greeny mates and any other fwit that cares to listen that they did something to help the enviroment. Because at the end of the day they are too gutless to stand up to the real polluters or tackle real issues.

Do they go over to Asia & try and ban their oil burning shit box mopeds millions of them ride everyday or go to China to try and stop them poluting? No they would tell them to get stuffed, so they decide that a few outboards that get little use by a minority in Australia are a bettter chance of them getting a win.

Also I would hope that no Member on this site wouldnt be throwing their rubbish over board too!

[FNQCairns]

Yes you're top most paragraph is quite clear and precise and to the point and it makes great sense perfect sense and not very long-winded I think you do understand it and are getting it I'm glad I'm getting through to you so quickly but I don't actually understand what you actually said because it was not very precise or clear or....;)

About the "kids" game I actually think it's great it explains the situation in terms that most of the people on this forum would be able to understand. Take for example the definition of Global Warming:

"Global warming is a term used to describe the increase in temperatures across the world over the last century.
The earth's average temperatures have crept up by about half a degree Celsius in the last hundred years, making the twentieth century the warmest of the millennium.
According to the CSIRO (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/gh_faq.htm#gh17), Greenhouse gases are the main reason we're enjoying the balmiest weather since Jesus was in short pants.
Greenhouse gases have a reputation as being the bad boys of the atmospheric playground, but they actually make our existence possible, by keeping our planet warm enough to sustain life.
The real problem is what we call the enhanced greenhouse effect. This is what we get when we produce too many greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide, methane) by burning fossil fuels, which pushes the greenhouse effect into overdrive."

Yes you will need to excuse me, I do not in truth take the debate very seriously, I try to keep my replies constant with the overall depth of the global warming mentality as it exists and has existed this last 3 years, I also largely rap out my replies in fairly quick time if possible. We are under no immediate (anyone's lifetime) or even medium term threat - yet. So the drama (read chicken little) importance is lost on me.

What is so fascinating is the study of human behaviour within global warming. From people capable of claims based on the shallowest of justifications to about faces and how they cope with alternative proofs etc, now of interest is how all this will play out and what twists of psychology will be employed to save face/hide face, I have already read a new theory where global warming is just taking a break and will resume in 2015 (might end up true, dunno)...human nature is fascinating, saddening but fascinating!

Your CSIRO link is good it attempts to answer lots of relevant Qs on the issue, although expect it to be further modified over the coming years as politics allows.

I notice they still (have no good choice yet) included the ipcc and they tread relatively lightly as they DO know the data used to assume answers has been shown to be flawed or inconsistent (surface temperature readings) or altered or selectively chosen or just plain rubbish (al gore's hockey stick - google it) or based on incompetent computer software models.

So to put it in another way, no co2 is not the reason for the balmy weather (if you say it is :-[) ...... it is in their opinion based on the models/references/data used at the time, which would align with the ipcc because it has to (we have been through the ipcc already), non sloppy science is self correcting. When politics allows their opinion will change as the now emerging evidence becomes less taboo.

If you keep digging you will get to where it all gets interesting, I like this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange LUV it actually -the next 'cause' possibly.

This one is good

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Here is another a bit of a package actually but it might give some scope?? I have not read it yet

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html

cheers fnq

[reidy_g]

It never ceases to amaze me what an ignorant bunch of people fishermen are. I imagine half of the people here still throw their bait bags over the side.

Until the valuable contribution from Benny here, the debate on this site has been the opposite for me. Its generally been the most intelligent, respectful exchange of ideas and opinions from both sides I've seen in a long time... FAR from ignorant. I knew it wouldn't be long before someone implied we're hillbillies, cavemen or vandals just because we enjoy fishing but dare to question the hype of human-induced climate change and its inappropriate justification for banning 2 stroke outboards. Disappointing.

Let's keep it above the belt.

[mudrunner]

Mexican scientist warns Earth will enter
'Little Ice Age' for up to 80 Years

16 Aug 08 - An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years due to decrease in solar activity.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM, who that teaches at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development, described as erroneous predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the so-called global warming.
The models and forecasts of the IPCC "is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity," said Velasco Herrera, who also specializes in image processing and signs and prevention of natural disasters. The phenomenon of climate change, he added, should include other kinds of factors, both internal, such as volcanoes and human activity, and external, such as solar activity.
"In this century glaciers are growing", as seen in the Andes, Perito Moreno, Logan, the highest mountain in Canada, and with Franz-Josef Glacier, New Zealand, said Velasco Herrera.

At present, the world is going through a transition phase where solar activity diminishes considerably, "so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years."

[TimiBoy]

OK so global warming fraud and co2 is just a convenient way of duping all the Neanderthals who already know all about the state of true pollution and population into doing something MORE to a degree that the brightly enlightened find acceptable - I am getting it?.

Here is an interesting kids game, it in effect tells me that to save the Globe I should have killed myself near 15 times already...I scored 2.6, might hit 3.0 at a stretch.

If kids and the unstable do not have enough to deal with already - enough trying to make those that cannot protect themselves feel guilty over nothing of substance, these zealots don't even have an underbelly!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

cheers fnq

1.9 for me. But I am a "rampant consumer!" If it wasn't for people like me, Greenies wouldn't have a job. And hell, that didn't include the 15 diesel engines I run for work, or the 6 more I'm about to buy, or the fuel guzzling Verado on the back of my boat!

The way I'm feeling about these twits, I might just try and hurry the process up, and take the bastards with me. Do us all a favour.

Cheers,

Tim

[TimiBoy]

Mexican scientist warns Earth will enter
'Little Ice Age' for up to 80 Years




But he cannot be a "reputable Scientist", as ALL reputable Scientists agree that we're on the road to Armageddon due to man made global warming. We've been told this, haven't we? David Evans was only reputable before he left the CSIRO? How many others have become disreputable?

I had a giggle thinking about Galileo when he published in the early 1600's that the sun was at the centre of the Solar System. The Church told him that he had to withdraw his publication, that it was accepted that the earth was the centre of the Universe. He was excommunicated and very nearly lost his life over it.

The parallel is strong - The Global Warming Movement (the Catholic Church) are ready to hang every dissenting Scientist (Copernicus) from the rafters, even though their Science often holds water. They refuse (refused) to even read it! Their opinion is somehow right because the majority say so, and dissenting views are "heresy".

Cheers,

Tim

[Far side]

I think the science is flawed erring on the pro C02 side

Lets face it if the goverment is funding your scientific research are you going to tell them to stop wasting money and put you out of a job no way.
You are going to present the data in a manner that ensures that next year when funding becomes available you are going to get a big chunk of it.

[siegfried]

I think Bennyboy was having a troll , back under ya rock benny ,come out when your ready to be a good boy. Tripper to add a thanks to a post like that does wonders for your credibility, did you two meet at a wiggles concert?

[TimiBoy]

I think Bennyboy was having a troll , back under ya rock benny ,come out when your ready to be a good boy. Tripper to add a thanks to a post like that does wonders for your credibility, did you two meet at a wiggles concert?

No, I think they picked each other up at the front gates of a NASA site, carrying signs saying "Moon Landings faked."

I agree, they obviously find their arguments under the same pebbles.

Cheers,

Tim

[kamiza]

Hi All

I class myself as a simple man,a (poor) part time hunter and gatherer that goes out in his lil tinnie every now and then to enjoy a bit of a fish and this is just an observation as I see it. 8-)

The quality of this thread is certainly impressive (wow just look at the petrol thingie and Co2 emmissions that you guys have worked out). Not sure on the Moon thing but everyone is entitled to an opinion. I do worry when I see statements that contain "possibly , probably, since 1850" (what happened before that?) On the other hand Co2 and plants etc I spose do not make for good aguements! :-/

I would like to think that we all are a little more carefull on the water now that we have knowledge as to the damage of line plastic bags etc and I for one always pick up the nasties when walking along my stretch of paradise, someone posted the phrase thinking eviromentalist this is a good term!;D

Every day I see the politicians,greenies (extreme element) economists not to mention the reserve bank telling me how bad I have been in spending too much time on the water in my old tinnie with my old 75HP merc, or fishing where I am not sposed to be or that for 3 weeks I am not allowed to take fish from this or that area, that I have been spending too much money on my fishfinder from overseas (have to keep imports to a minimum) or I spend too much money so we have to put your mortgage up (8 times) Geeze when does all this stop? >:(

As I said at the beginning I am just a poor simple guy trying to enjoy things in life as I reach my latter years, I like to think I don't have my head in the sand but when are some of our corporate identities, economists and politicians going to take some of the blame?

I see Power stations wanting dispensation on carbon emmissions, I see Banks making record profits, I see China India & Brazil snubbing their nose at emmissions, I see politicians telling me how well off I am and NOW I MUST GET A NEW LAWNMOWER & OUTBOARD to be politically correct!!! WHOSE PAYING ???

Is all this my fault??? Acording to the above YES cause I am the one that is out of pocket.

My proposal is this if you feel really passionate about this send me a donation and I will get that new 4 stroke outboard and with the leftovers a new Lawn mower and I will have done my bit and be able to sleep at nights.

Cheers

Mark

[Chris Ryan]

I asked a direct question of the Federal Department in charge of this CRPS (carbon tax) and this is the response. I thought the question was straight forward, but maybe you guys will get a straight answer as they are NOT putting any responses in writing. I am still to talk with this gent but will let you know their response.


Firstly my question.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Ryan

Sent: Monday, 21 July 2008 1:42 PM
To: Communications
Subject: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

Hi,

Not quite understanding the documentation on this subject, has the Federal Government now declared carbon as a pollutant?

I know the scheme is subject to Senate approval, but is carbon now in the realms of other pollutants that harm our environment?

Thank you
Chris


Their response was to ask to call them, no information, nothing. Just please call.

[frogfuzz]

"If it wasn't for people like me, Greenies wouldn't have a job"

- I think you'd find that the majority wouldn't have a real job as it is, unless you count collecting cheques from the government a real job. They rely on us to pay our taxes to fund their lifestyle/crusade.

As for the "middle class" Greenie, the ignorant ones who voted for Kebbin in the last election - like "Whinging Wendy" on the ALP adds, complaining about having to fuel (probably V8 Landcrusier or the like) car was just getting too darn expensive and it was all Howards fault, all the while standing in a well equipped modern kitchen/house, while they think going shopping with a non-biodegradable calico bag made in some polluting sweat shop in China is "doing your bit for the environment", I think that they will quickly wake up to the fact that Kebbin's Carbon Tax will make their mortgage payments far harder to meet than some percieved evil on Howards part in the past. For these people, being "green" is great so long as somebody else pays for it.

Besides, any drop in interest rates will be short term, as we are heading for a period of stagflation. Blind freddy can see that. Kebbin's cash grab (carbon tax) will only make matters worse for those of us who have mortgages. Welcome another "recession we had to have".

In fact the only people who will be able to go fishing will be people who can afford luxury beach mansions on the beach front at the Sunshine Coast. Say like, the 300 million dollar man, Kebbin Rudd. You know, the one who sticks up for workers sooooooooooo much. They just happen to live in China, not Australia.

I'll start to believe in Global Warming caused by man made CO2, when proponents start to practice what they preach and commit harikari. Or they move to China and tell their fellow socialists what to do to save the planet.