one way for the govt's... both Federal and State.. to save some mucho dinero..  AND  do the Earth a good act..  would be for ALL PLANNED..!!..EXPANSIONS OF PORTS AND INCREASED MINING AND COAL EXPORTS ALONG THE QLD COAST, 

BE SHELVED IMMEDIATELY. !!
ALL MAJOR EXPORT FACILITIES.   of any description,... should be EXPANDED in THE NORTH. Darwin  it the obvious place for a major export hub.

LEAVE THE GREAT BARRIER REEF ALONE  ... to recover from the poisons we have already pumped in and destroyed so much.

$$$$$$$$$$$$  Money is NO EXCUSE for such PILLAGE and DESTRUCTION. 
Have we learned NOTHING,////  ??? Nothing at all???  :(

Do we really understand what our greed will do to the Reef.? Does it matter?

..the biggest killers of coastal coral reefs are rising water temperature and run off of chemicals such as phosphorous and man made toxins

There was an ocean research who visited AUstralia recently and claimed that if current trends continue the Great Barrier Reef will be almost gone by 2030

I cant recall the name of the researcher - I will have a look around the ether and the voidless abyss for you

Just a little stat of concern

About half the Great barrier Reef has vanished in the past 27 years

it'll be sad reading my friend.

the World Heritage status of the Great Barrier Reef is at immediate risk. 
Attitudes of Fed and State gov's to ongoing and increasing exploitation in the region has caused the current failing condition of the Reef...  and it's on OUR WATCH.!!

:(

Almost everything you see on the planet today that is of great concern is caused by the Corporatised Capitalist model that has enslaved the world

Economists actually believe that ECONOMIC growth is unbounded and infinite is scope.

They somehow categorise all of the earths resources as infinite

They then superimpose this INSANE notion that the only thing that matters is maximising SHORT TERM PROFITS

the mess we witness now is a result of this moronic exploitative short term neurosis of the corporative mentality

The Earth is sick because humans are sick

Banks are also a big part of the problem

They wont release funding for renewable energy options to easily

But for the military industrial complex and the fossil fuel and nuclear industries there seems to be blank cheques flying all over the place

Its a total disgrace

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 12:23am:

Banks are also a big part of the problem They wont release funding for renewable energy options to easily But for the military industrial complex and the fossil fuel and nuclear industries there seems to be blank cheques flying all over the place Its a total disgrace

Yes, but pure commercial turnover and therefore the ability to repay would explain this wouldn't it!??!

All they're interested in, surely, is infinite dreams of mathematical exponential growth and therefore only regulation can solve the problem.

Banks aren't supposed to have a heart as far as I know- they are one of those things called public companies that simply calculate profitability on behalf of global investors!

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 12:15am:

Almost everything you see on the planet today that is of great concern is caused by the Corporatised Capitalist model that has enslaved the world Economists actually believe that ECONOMIC growth is unbounded and infinite is scope. They somehow categorise all of the earths resources as infinite They then superimpose this INSANE notion that the only thing that matters is maximising SHORT TERM PROFITS the mess we witness now is a result of this moronic exploitative short term neurosis of the corporative mentality The Earth is sick because humans are sick

Companies take advantage of the groupthink that is the essence of democracy.

Mining Companies are well known for bamboozling governments: in 1st world democracies this means bamboozling the people into thinking they are a cut above the rest of the population if they get on the "ÿou can't stop progress"train.

I've dived the barrier reef a few times over the years, each time less impressive than the last.

But what to do? Move it south?

I seriously doubt that anything can be done. The economic downturn is the best thing that could've happened for the environment, but that's not going to be nearly enough.

For the average punter, the best that we can probably do is to cut down personal usage of everything as much as possible.
..Not that I think that will ultimately do a whole lot of good either. They'll just keep importing consumers until the entire world becomes an overcrowded 4th world wasteland.

Now for a positive spin.... ;D

..I just thought of one. It might not happen in my lifetime. ::)

teaser amadd

no..  not move the reef south... move the heavy industry...?? north..!?   or  even  ....farrrrrrrrrr west?? 
Or   ... find another means of exploiting our country,  which DOES NOT degrade it for all other interests.
Or...  accept the world is a finite resource,  and NOT one it is ours to consume without consequence.

All it takes is the will. 

I have to say  ..
:(
I'm sad at the lack of interest by posters on this forum.... of THIS issue.

On a small sample...?? 

YEP  WE   ....   get that...  ???

WE  will destroy the Great Barrier Reef. 

too hard to think about...??

too hard to face??? 

REALITY  ..often is.... 

can't be bothered to express a view  'cos nothing can be done..???

WRONG..... PEOPLE  .. all it takes is the WILL.

Emma wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 12:15am:

teaser amadd no..  not move the reef south... move the heavy industry...?? north..!?   or  even  ....farrrrrrrrrr west??  Or   ... find another means of exploiting our country,  which DOES NOT degrade it for all other interests. Or...  accept the world is a finite resource,  and NOT one it is ours to consume without consequence. All it takes is the will.

Yes that ant can move the rubber tree plant.

So you go ahead and shift all of that mining machinery off of Cape York.
Jeez,..people jump up and down about a piddly carbon tax and you want to dismantle the entire mining industry?
Get your head out of the clouds girl. You are not being rational at all.

well one gets nowhere without some goal to aim for,  some desire to be fulfilled... I'd hope that as a species we will outlive our own negatives...  and improve....
 
and we will treasure our home  .. rather than destroy it ..

definitely unrealistic...   BUT

wholly RATIONAL.  Thanks Amadd  :)

Emma wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 12:57am:

well one gets nowhere without some goal to aim for,  some desire to be fulfilled... I'd hope that as a species we will outlive our own negatives...  and improve....   and we will treasure our home  .. rather than destroy it .. definitely unrealistic...   BUT wholly RATIONAL.  Thanks Amadd  :)

So there you go again.
I haven't done hundreds and hundreds of dives because I hate the underwater environment and have no respect for it you know.
I've also attended protest dives during the deepening of the Melbourne shipping channel which I think helped to minimise damage to an extent.

It's all very well to have a goal, but there must be some semblance of rationality within attaining that goal.

The world would need a new Hitler to the power of 1000 to stop the capitalist juggernaut, and even if this were possible, it would cause the death of billions.
So you may as well have the goal of tap dancing upon the waters of an undiscovered barrier reef on Mars.

The world would need a new Hitler to the power of 1000 to stop the capitalist juggernaut, and even if this were possible, it would cause the death of billions.
So you may as well have the goal of tap dancing upon the waters of an undiscovered barrier reef on Mars.
- Amadd

THIS  IS your RATIONAL opinion??? :D :D :D

So Amadd... your answer to the question posed by the topic

is  YES.   :(

It's too hard....  boo hoo.

Billions of deaths because we choose to protect the Great Barrier Reef..??? 

YOU need to  GET REAL,, no..???

Emma wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 2:32am:

The world would need a new Hitler to the power of 1000 to stop the capitalist juggernaut, and even if this were possible, it would cause the death of billions. So you may as well have the goal of tap dancing upon the waters of an undiscovered barrier reef on Mars. - Amadd THIS  IS your RATIONAL opinion??? :D :D :D

Yes, I'm telling you to get real.
You have no influence over even 5% of the people on this forum, let alone the billions required to murder other billions in order to bring the world to a halt and hopefully save the barrier reef.

Will we destroy the barrier reef?
Personally, I'll try not to. Will you?

Don't forget that we are a part of nature also, and the reef is quite a few million yrs older than humanity.
We may not be as wise as we assume ourselves to be when considering ourselves nature's keeper.
Nature might in fact be keeping us.

Semantics aside cambell newman will prolly give the big miners permission and policy to destroy the reef.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 4:29am:

Semantics aside cambell newman will prolly give the big miners permission and policy to destroy the reef. SOB

i think your prolly wrong

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 9:22am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:29am: Semantics aside cambell newman will prolly give the big miners permission and policy to destroy the reef. SOB i think your prolly wrong

What exactly is wrong with what i said?

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 9:22am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:29am: Semantics aside cambell newman will prolly give the big miners permission and policy to destroy the reef. SOB i think your prolly wrong

Really, spot is usually exceptional and accurate with his rational and cogent arguments, taking the time to weigh up the facts and present a valid comment.  ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 11:53pm:

..the biggest killers of coastal coral reefs are rising water temperature and run off of chemicals such as phosphorous and man made toxins There was an ocean research who visited AUstralia recently and claimed that if current trends continue the Great Barrier Reef will be almost gone by 2030 I cant recall the name of the researcher - I will have a look around the ether and the voidless abyss for you Just a little stat of concern About half the Great barrier Reef has vanished in the past 27 years

Was looking forward to the link for this...got one?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 9:45am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:22am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:29am: Semantics aside cambell newman will prolly give the big miners permission and policy to destroy the reef. SOB i think your prolly wrong What exactly is wrong with what i said? SOB

prolly wrong

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 10:58am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:45am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:22am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:29am: Semantics aside cambell newman will prolly give the big miners permission and policy to destroy the reef. SOB i think your prolly wrong What exactly is wrong with what i said? SOB prolly wrong

I take it the only thing wrong with it is that you dont like that i said it then.

SOB

prolly not

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 11:10am:

prolly not

And you wonder why you arent taken seriously

SOB

prolly

The GBR is vast and most of it is a long way offshore. Could someone please explain how some port development could affect it in any significant way?

That reef looks fuct already, too late.

The best reefs for diving are on the west coast now.

They are all going to be fuct in 30 years anyway.

Perhaps some corals will move south with warming climates

There are lots of dangers to the reef, including natural variances in weather patterns.

One of the bigger dangers is the crown of thorns starfish, which is a natural inhabitant of the reef, but has grown to damaging numbers as they feed on the coral polyps and have very few natural predators.

The reason for it's current abundance is said to be largely due to the increase of algae (that they also feed on) caused by agricultural runoff.
Although the reef is a long way offshore in parts, the crown of thorns will eventually spread in large numbers throughout the entire reef.

Of course this isn't the only danger. Just a couple of degrees rise in water temperature will wipe out most of the reef.
Then there's shipping traffic, oil spill threats, tourism, overfishing, etc.

Supposedly, the crown of thorns is a Japanese delicacy, so maybe we can swap them a few tons of starfish for some whales?

A long time ago, I heard that the Crown of Thorns Starfish was out of control because one of its predators , a shell of some kind was being removed from the reef by people.

miketrees wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 8:21pm:

A long time ago, I heard that the Crown of Thorns Starfish was out of control because one of its predators , a shell of some kind was being removed from the reef by people.

Yeah. "The giant triton" has an attractive shell, but it is now protected from collectors. Unfortunately it doesn't survive very well amidst human activity like the crown of thorns does.

Amadd wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 3:14am:

Emma wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 2:32am: The world would need a new Hitler to the power of 1000 to stop the capitalist juggernaut, and even if this were possible, it would cause the death of billions. So you may as well have the goal of tap dancing upon the waters of an undiscovered barrier reef on Mars. - Amadd THIS  IS your RATIONAL opinion??? :D :D :D Yes, I'm telling you to get real. You have no influence over even 5% of the people on this forum, let alone the billions required to murder other billions in order to bring the world to a halt and hopefully save the barrier reef. Will we destroy the barrier reef? Personally, I'll try not to. Will you? Don't forget that we are a part of nature also, and the reef is quite a few million yrs older than humanity. We may not be as wise as we assume ourselves to be when considering ourselves nature's keeper. Nature might in fact be keeping us.

Jeez .. ur brilliant..!!! 

We may not be as wise as we assume ourselves to be when considering ourselves nature's keeper.
Nature might in fact be keeping us...  Amadd

This is a NEW THOUGHT for you ??  ::)

pjb05 wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 5:04pm:

The GBR is vast and most of it is a long way offshore. Could someone please explain how some port development could affect it in any significant way?

are you serious with this question? pj's..??

do you have any interest in the Great Barrier Reef...  or is it just another acronym  ... ?  GBR..  :(

Did you make this thread just to be an obnoxious pain in the ass?

I know a great dive location on the GBR that I could recommend to you where very mysterious events seem to occur. ;)

Emma wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 11:11pm:

Amadd wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 3:14am: Emma wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 2:32am: The world would need a new Hitler to the power of 1000 to stop the capitalist juggernaut, and even if this were possible, it would cause the death of billions. So you may as well have the goal of tap dancing upon the waters of an undiscovered barrier reef on Mars. - Amadd THIS  IS your RATIONAL opinion??? :D :D :D Yes, I'm telling you to get real. You have no influence over even 5% of the people on this forum, let alone the billions required to murder other billions in order to bring the world to a halt and hopefully save the barrier reef. Will we destroy the barrier reef? Personally, I'll try not to. Will you? Don't forget that we are a part of nature also, and the reef is quite a few million yrs older than humanity. We may not be as wise as we assume ourselves to be when considering ourselves nature's keeper. Nature might in fact be keeping us. Jeez .. ur brilliant..!!!  We may not be as wise as we assume ourselves to be when considering ourselves nature's keeper. Nature might in fact be keeping us...  Amadd This is a NEW THOUGHT for you ??  ::)

Emma, if he's talking religion you just tell em that they obvioysly don't believe in a heavenly government if they are on a politics site!

Easy done!!  ;) ;)

Great fun too.... don't forget to duck!  ;D  :-? :-? :-? ::)  8-)

I won't .!   :)

quack quack

Amadd wrote on May 3^rd, 2013 at 12:27am:

Did you make this thread just to be an obnoxious pain in the ass? I know a great dive location on the GBR that I could recommend to you where very mysterious events seem to occur. ;)

ah !!   :) friend Amadd... :)

in answer... No  ... I started this thread because i genuinely believe that our governments are treating it like it doesn't exist. !!That it has no 'value', which is patently ridiculous.!!
Massive increases in large shipping will result if these Ports,  and adjacent coal  etc resources are further exploited for economic gain.
You perceive no risk from this??
Poisonous run-off from agricultural and mining activity is  a non-event..???

WHY DO I NEED to explain this to you. ?? 

You say you know of dive spots on the Reef...  well how will you feel when they are smothered, dying under an oil spill,  or ripped up by some giant chinese container ship..??

Why are you threatened by my raising of this issue,..??

Hey .. I cannot 'dive' on the Barrier Reef..or find  'places'...  the ONLY time I visited the Reef , was on my honeymoon.

Dunk Island...  20 yrs ago
It was marvellous... and I snorkelled on the Reef... I saw a giant groper, being fed from the toes of a crewman, offering the bait by hanging over the side  ... to Ulysses... 

Sadly.. yrs later ,  some c*nt killed Ulysses >:(  one of a pair of giant gropers...
... the same mindset that sees the Reef as a major shipping highway for our filthy exports.

WHY DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU IF YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE REEF AND LOVE DIVING THERE.?




 

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm somehow gunning for the destruction of the reef.

Yes shipping can do great damage, especially because of the protection chemicals the ships use.
That's one of the easier problems to control.

The last El Nino caused massive bleaching, probably  exasperated by climate change.

I've seen dive sites decimated by well meaning but clumsy divers who break the corals left right and centre. And then there's those who want a little souvenir to take home with them, not knowing or disregarding how long it took for that little piece of coral to grow.
But that's a piss in the ocean compared to the other threats.

My point is that it's not as simple as jumping up and down saying "stop any new ports and the reef will be saved".
The collective electorate does a lot harder jumping up and down when a twinge of economic pain is felt, and the fact of the matter is that 'no new ports' doesn't equate to saving the reef by any stretch.

Instead of whinging for somebody else to do something, you need to get out there and stomp the pavement, or maybe even get out there and take out a few (very poisonous) crown of thorns yourself.

miketrees wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 8:01pm:

That reef looks fuct already, too late. The best reefs for diving are on the west coast now. They are all going to be fuct in 30 years anyway. Perhaps some corals will move south with warming climates

We dont need it for diving - we need it for the ecology.

SOB

It seems inevitable that the reef won't last too many more decades.

I'm going to be absent from the forum for a month or so. I'll check in when I'm not climbing in the Appenines.

oooooh   :) lucky you...enjoy  :)

I feel sad really that there has been so little response ..so few posts ..on this topic.

Is there another thread..??   :)

Nope..?   :(

I guess most people who post on this Forum, reflect the wider community...    most of you live in cities... the Reef is a leisure destination.. 

Emma wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 2:13am:

I feel sad really that there has been so little response ..so few posts ..on this topic. Is there another thread..??   :) Nope..?   :( I guess most people who post on this Forum, reflect the wider community...    most of you live in cities... the Reef is a leisure destination..

Well misty didnt help

Thing is - the question isnt in the media. Any media. Just shows they all have the same agendas. Cambell newman willl pass legislation while nobody reports it and it will be done.

SOB

yes ..brings back memories of the past in QLD doesn't it?  won't be long  and we'll BE there.   >:(

As far as I know the biggest factor by a long shot causing reef bleaching, is global warming. It's causing reefs all over the world to die and there's not much we can do about it. The war against fish is won and much of their homeland has been made desert. It's likely that all jungles will cease to be in the near future and lions ,tigers, rhinos etc will soon go the way of the dinosaurs.

I've made my existence tied to the Siberian tiger, when the last one has gone I wont want to live here anymore.  :'(

thats a strong statement Grey

I understand .. 

sometimes I don't want to be in TODAY,  but seem to muddle on till the morrow.

It IS a serious question tho ..what is the bearable limit ... beyond which it is too much!?.

The Eastern Seaboard turned into a line of filthy refinery's and ports is definitely something I find beyond tolerance. 

Throw another capitalist bastard on the barbie. ;)

http://0.tqn.com/d/animals/1/0/P/s/iStock_000003366153XSmall.jpg

Purrrfect

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zeVRxmSDPa4/UFXwkRSsH0I/AAAAAAAAEOk/zbKcNrK1a3A/s1600/Lounging_Siberian_Tiger_Couple_879.jpg

Good on you for at least acting out a charade of caring Emma, but if you are really serious, you must be prepared to suffer economic hardship of the likes that you have never experienced for something that you will never see in your lifetime.

The horse has bolted in regards to many of the world's reefs. They will never again exist in their previous form of just 30yrs ago, so fragile are their eco-systems.
Unfortunately, we aren't really that good at suffering economic hardship here in Australia, and neither is the rest of the world. It's not generally human nature to strive for economic hardship.

What you can do is to do your utmost to reduce your carbon footprint at every turn, to the point of recycling your bong water. And you must be able to do this happily whilst watching everybody else swanning around wastefully. That would be a better a better definition of rock hard plums than pointing the bone at everybody else IMO.

Amadd?? 

You lecture me on  'economic hardship'?? you'd have no idea of my life... 
another ignoramus who thinks they know everything.

Grey..??

throw'm to the tigers and lions... the crocs and the hippo's... the sharks and the killer whales... 

the fire ants and the screw worms, the snakes and Gila Monsters,  ..

to  misquote  a personnage 

In Wilderness is preservation of the World.

Emma wrote on May 6^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

Amadd??  You lecture me on  'economic hardship'?? you'd have no idea of my life...  another ignoramus who thinks they know everything.

Yes of course it's sooooo hard for you Emma. Nobody would even understand.
Grow a pair biatch.

If you can't do it yourself, then stop bloody pointing the finger at those who you want to do it for you. Grow up!

UN again flags Great Barrier Reef concerns

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-04/united-nations-again-flags-great-barrier-reef/4669916

you know something Amadd??? 
.
I have absolutely no idea why you object , personally, to my posts on this topic... 

Clearly I have offended you.. but your curious demands add nothing to the story.....   

so..??  expres yourself more ably pls..  else stfu... ,
you know??

What would you like me to say Emma?

I'd like to call it as I see it.
I'm not offended per se', but I see a simple lack of understanding and a lack of balls to do anything that hasn't been tried 1000 times before you.
It all falls down when sacrifice without recognition is involved.

Let's face it, you require that recognition because you are human too.
Whatever angle you take, you cannot get around the fact that you are human too.

Sure, everybody would do what it takes to save the reef, as long as they get some recognition at the end of it.
If that recognition is 1 or 2 thousand lifetimes away, there would not be many takers.

...I'm not offended per se', but I see a simple lack of understanding and a lack of balls to do anything that hasn't been tried 1000 times before you.
It all falls down when sacrifice without recognition is involved.

Let's face it, you require that recognition because you are human too.
Whatever angle you take, you cannot get around the fact that you are human too.....Amadd

Hey Amadd,  I'm only a demi-goddess... 
Not Diana...  YET.

You've well accomplished the status of IDIOT

I can't stand you. You have nothing. You are a blight upon the face of this earth.

Don't be offended. I hate most people...especially western idiots.

Ostensibly, the reef is ruined because of people like you who have no clue who they are or what they are about.

The bottom line is that you want recognition. And so do I. I want recognition for explaining to you that you want recognition for something you will not care about beyond your lifetime.

You don't understand that you really don't care that much at all.

'I want recognition for explaining to you that you want recognition for something you will not care about beyond your lifetime.
You don't understand that you really don't care that much at all.' ..-AMADD


Now that is a thought-provoking declaration.


;D ;D :D ;D :D :D ;D :o ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D

Yep,  thought provoking par excellence :) :)

It makes me think you are nutso...  crazy in the coconut.. 

away with the wackos and fairies..dancing in the fairy ring..

dreaming of Allah's paradise ..where you get to rape all the virgins you like...

seriously delusional  ...in other words......   ::) ::) :P :P

If you think it's so nutso, then you will realise that the barrier reef problem won't be solved in a thousand lifetimes, even if you or I does everything right.

You are way way behind the conversation Emma. Were you smoking bongs when the real stuff was happening?
The reefs are gone now baby buns. It's a little too late for weakass feminist ideals to fix anything.

Amadd wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 12:27am:

You've well accomplished the status of IDIOT I can't stand you. You have nothing. You are a blight upon the face of this earth. Don't be offended. I hate most people...especially western idiots. Ostensibly, the reef is ruined because of people like you who have no clue who they are or what they are about.

If you hate western idiots then why are you trying to mimic them?

  8-) 8-)

You can't win:  :-*

Amadd wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 3:33am:

If you think it's so nutso, then you will realise that the barrier reef problem won't be solved in a thousand lifetimes, even if you or I does everything right. You are way way behind the conversation Emma. Were you smoking bongs when the real stuff was happening? The reefs are gone now baby buns. It's a little too late for weakass feminist ideals to fix anything.

What was 'the real stuff' and when was it happening?

The real stuff was when the reef was still alive about 10-15yrs ago. Even then it was too late, but now it's far too late. The so-so reef is half dead already and not much hope of saving the rest no matter what is done.

Of course controlling the crown of thorns, restricting shipping, tourism and all new developments wouldn't hurt, but further temperature rise seems inevitable unless the world's population ceased to exist tomorrow.

So use half of everything for no applause and watch half of Africa and India being imported here to appease company profits. Then watch them being as wasteful as your neighbour, because after all, Australians are one of the world's largest per capita energy users.

But yes I still try to use less energy, as do many people.
It's not a matter of "I don't care" or "it's all too hard" as has been accused of me. It's a matter of, "IMO, try as we may, the machine cannot be stopped or recreated enough to save what's left of the reef and keep the economy as well. If the reef stops dying, it probably won't be due to 10% of the population halving their carbon footprint or 80% of the population pointing to everybody else to do something.

at last, Amadd.. :)

we have a genuine opinion from you..  and .. it is one which would seem very realistic... 
and it is...  :(

To me I  suppose the Great Barrier Reef is a living/dying organic part of the Earth, an example of what is always worth fighting for. 

The Reef dies..we Die...  does seem inevitable doesn't it..?

But you know Amadd,  even tho I agree all is doomed...  yet  still...   
if I've learned anything,  it is ...  anything can happen tomorrow... or the next day..
Still... its never a good idea to GIVE UP.

What will be will be.


...an old saw my Mum favored... bless her.

It's a matter of, "IMO, try as we may, the machine cannot be stopped or recreated enough to save what's left of the reef and keep the economy as well. If the reef stops dying, it probably won't be due to 10% of the population halving their carbon footprint or 80% of the population pointing to everybody else to do something.


[/quote]

Amadd...???  like many I don't think you are really clued in to the consequences we face..

'....... recreated enough to save what's left of the reef and keep the economy as well.'

ITS NOT..... EITHER/OR  .....  not a choice.... 

ITS NEITHER....  SURELY.!!!  ?????

but why lay your neck on the block... waiting for the blade...??

It's the same opinion that I've held all along  ::)

I never said that giving up is an option. My point is that people who want to help with the environment need to start with their own energy usage and wastage to cut demand.
Maybe it's not quite right that there is no recognition or applause, because the hip pocket says thankyou.
Unfortunately, it's not good for the economy.

But yes, I use far less now than I did ten years ago as a conscious effort.
What else would you suggest?

good for you...

I also use minimal power and common resources.. and am working to improve on that. 
It may be insignificant in the whole bigger picture ..who can say? .. I know it is not a hardship as of now...  and the  longer we improve our behaviour ..the greater the chance for better outcomes.
The Earth has amazing regenerative powers...  we really display our hubris by thinking we can permanently damage her..  but we can certainly make things very hard for ourselves in the wash-up.

Most people who are able to recognise the need, do make efforts to lessen their 'foot print'..
..sadly this doesn't apply to corporations or governments, for the most part.  Those that do, should be rewarded with patronage.

You imply I am just 'talkin' .. not walkin'...  why pick on me for standing up for what I consider important?. 
You don't know me Amadd.. so perhaps I'm just a name for a generic class you envisage.

Quote:

You imply I am just 'talkin' .. not walkin'...  why pick on me for standing up for what I consider important?.  You don't know me Amadd.. so perhaps I'm just a name for a generic class you envisage.

It is frustrating. Your poll will indicate that people value the reef over profits, however, election results will indicate something very different.

Of course people who visit this thread will be more likely to have a green POV, but the fact is that there is a lot of hypocrisy involved.
I voted "depending on the current economic climate", not because I don't care about the reef, it's because I know that if I had starving kids, myself or a relative in need of health care..etc., the health of the environment would come in a distant second as far as priorities go.

Unfortunately, this is the sad fact that we can't have our cake and eat it too. As much as I try to lessen my own carbon footprint, I am still indirectly sucking up resources with things that I value such as health care and education.
As much as I try, I am still using probably 5 or more times as much as the average Chinaman or Indian. And do you think that developing nations might like to have a better health care and education system, be able to drive cars and enjoy the luxuries that we do here?

I'd like to see an addition to your poll asking how many people (men especially) will give up using animal products. This means no more lamb roasts, no pepper steaks, no bacon, no milk, no cheeses, no leather jackets or lounge suites....no nothing that comes from animals.
Even this sacrifice would not be nearly enough, but I couldn't see it eventuating.

How about you make a Poll on this  ??
There are many opportunities for you to proceed.

I don't castigate people for favouring planet over profit.

To me..it seems the only sensible next step for humans to take.

"You’re a maritime nation...you have to manage the seas properly...you’re going in the right direction...you just have to do better”.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2013/04/08/3729644.htm

Emma wrote on May 8^th, 2013 at 7:45pm:

How about you make a Poll on this  ?? There are many opportunities for you to proceed. I don't castigate people for favouring planet over profit. To me..it seems the only sensible next step for humans to take.

My point was that it's easy to say that you favour the environment over profits, but not so simple to do.

Yes I could start a poll and ask people if they'd give up all animal products in the hope of saving the reef.
I could also go further and ask if they'd give up all agricultural products.
I could also ask if they'd forego an education for their children or medical treatment for a sick child or parent if were to be too much strain on the environment.
..Or I could ask if they'd be happy with no new Infrastructures or upkeep on the existing. ..The list goes on.

The uproar over the carbon tax alone should be enough of an indication as to how serious our nation's people really are about making a difference to the environment. It's all well and good as long as it doesn't have the potential to hit the wallet.

Unfortunately, it's the very poor nations who are the world's most environmentally friendly per capita...not by any specific choice of course. And not many of us here would honestly agree to live under those types of hardships if we have the choice either.

I'm not castigating people over being well intended. I'm glad that you started this thread in the hope that one or two might see that they really aren't all that prepared to give up their lifestyle (which stems from company profits) for the environment.

The world economy is already in dire trouble, IMO more because we've been saturated with products that are cluttering, unnecessary and becoming obsolete than any real thought for the environment.

As well as the exponential growth thing being proven a furphy, it's also up to us to personally do our bit to further cut demand.
I try to cut demand in full expectation that it's going to impact on me in later years barring some massive advances in renewable energy production.
Most other people, especially from other nations, will be putting their heads on the chopping block far more than me if they want to endeavour to help the environment.

Amadd wrote on May 7^th, 2013 at 3:33am:

If you think it's so nutso, then you will realise that the barrier reef problem won't be solved in a thousand lifetimes, even if you or I does everything right. You are way way behind the conversation Emma. Were you smoking bongs when the real stuff was happening? The reefs are gone now baby buns. It's a little too late for weakass feminist ideals to fix anything.

So saving something in the environment is feminist now? Or you just being a dick and calling it feminist because shes a female?

SOB

yeah   :P :)

Quote:

So saving something in the environment is feminist now? Or you just being a dick and calling it feminist because shes a female? SOB

No, that's a non-sequitur.

And nobody is saving anything by saying something should be saved.
As I tried to explain, but you obviously didn't understand, enjoying the privileges of a rich country such as Australia means that you are enjoying it's profits at the expense of the environment.

Amadd wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 12:38am:

[quote]So saving something in the environment is feminist now? Or you just being a dick and calling it feminist because shes a female? SOB

No, that's a non-sequitur.

  No it isn't..

Amadd wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 12:38am:

Quote: So saving something in the environment is feminist now? Or you just being a dick and calling it feminist because shes a female? SOB No, that's a non-sequitur. And nobody is saving anything by saying something should be saved. As I tried to explain, but you obviously didn't understand, enjoying the privileges of a rich country such as Australia means that you are enjoying it's profits at the expense of the environment.

You didnt answer my question.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 4:20am:

Amadd wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:38am: Quote: So saving something in the environment is feminist now? Or you just being a dick and calling it feminist because shes a female? SOB No, that's a non-sequitur. And nobody is saving anything by saying something should be saved. As I tried to explain, but you obviously didn't understand, enjoying the privileges of a rich country such as Australia means that you are enjoying it's profits at the expense of the environment. You didnt answer my question. SOB

What part of "No" didn't you understand?

Amadd wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 4:20am: Amadd wrote on May 10th, 2013 at 12:38am: Quote: So saving something in the environment is feminist now? Or you just being a dick and calling it feminist because shes a female? SOB No, that's a non-sequitur. And nobody is saving anything by saying something should be saved. As I tried to explain, but you obviously didn't understand, enjoying the privileges of a rich country such as Australia means that you are enjoying it's profits at the expense of the environment. You didnt answer my question. SOB What part of "No" didn't you understand?

So then what is the feminism? the fact that shes female?

SOB

Yes Emma is a feminist. Do you really need to be told that?

Just because Emma is female and a feminist, it doesn't stand true that all women are feminists and there is a requirement to be a feminist in order to post something about the barrier reef.



Here's an example of a statement which has agreeable logic:

Emma is a female and a feminist.
All feminists are hypocrites.
Emma is a hypocrite.

In this statement, the logic follows, regardless of any requirement for a hypocrite to be a feminist or female, or indeed any requirement for a feminist to be female.
The only assertion made in that example is that feminists are hypocrites.

The short answer I gave you was "No, it's a non-sequitur", because the logic you used was false.

Amadd wrote on May 9^th, 2013 at 12:51am:

Emma wrote on May 8th, 2013 at 7:45pm: How about you make a Poll on this  ?? There are many opportunities for you to proceed. I don't castigate people for favouring planet over profit. To me..it seems the only sensible next step for humans to take. My point was that it's easy to say that you favour the environment over profits, but not so simple to do. Yes I could start a poll and ask people if they'd give up all animal products in the hope of saving the reef. I could also go further and ask if they'd give up all agricultural products. I could also ask if they'd forego an education for their children or medical treatment for a sick child or parent if were to be too much strain on the environment. ..Or I could ask if they'd be happy with no new Infrastructures or upkeep on the existing. ..The list goes on. The uproar over the carbon tax alone should be enough of an indication as to how serious our nation's people really are about making a difference to the environment. It's all well and good as long as it doesn't have the potential to hit the wallet. Unfortunately, it's the very poor nations who are the world's most environmentally friendly per capita...not by any specific choice of course. And not many of us here would honestly agree to live under those types of hardships if we have the choice either. I'm not castigating people over being well intended. I'm glad that you started this thread in the hope that one or two might see that they really aren't all that prepared to give up their lifestyle (which stems from company profits) for the environment. The world economy is already in dire trouble, IMO more because we've been saturated with products that are cluttering, unnecessary and becoming obsolete than any real thought for the environment. As well as the exponential growth thing being proven a furphy, it's also up to us to personally do our bit to further cut demand. I try to cut demand in full expectation that it's going to impact on me in later years barring some massive advances in renewable energy production. Most other people, especially from other nations, will be putting their heads on the chopping block far more than me if they want to endeavour to help the environment.

I commend you Amadd,  .. well written and reasoned.

I think you are correct.  To use an old term...  consumerism..seems to be the raison d'etre for living today,. the ACQUISITION of GOODS... 
not really new is it...  keeping up with the Joneses.. ::)

I had hoped it would die a reasonably swift death, as reality came home...   Sadly our media have vested interest in the status quo,  and so it continues to be-devil us to this day.

Well... not me personally...   :)

I have a fridge, a TV, a washing machine and this comp.  I have a waterpump. And a sullage pump.
These are the only electrical products I use regularly/or daily. O yeah... there's my security system and electric remote-controlled gate, and my electric taped fence barrier. 

HMMMM   ..we become so accustomed to things, they assume the identity of our environment. 

Quote:

I commend you Amadd,  .. well written and reasoned. I think you are correct.  To use an old term...  consumerism..seems to be the raison d'etre for living today,. the ACQUISITION of GOODS...  not really new is it...  keeping up with the Joneses.. Roll Eyes I had hoped it would die a reasonably swift death, as reality came home...   Sadly our media have vested interest in the status quo,  and so it continues to be-devil us to this day. Well... not me personally...   Smiley I have a fridge, a TV, a washing machine and this comp.  I have a waterpump. And a sullage pump. These are the only electrical products I use regularly/or daily. O yeah... there's my security system and electric remote-controlled gate, and my electric taped fence barrier.  HMMMM   ..we become so accustomed to things, they assume the identity of our environment.

Well thankyou for realising that there are far more emissions involved in a so-called environmentally friendly lifestyle than meets the eye.
A more detailed estimation of our personal carbon footprints can be done here:
http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/

..Then there's our indirect emissions to be added.

When comparing our per capita emissions here in Australia to a poor country such as India, it's pretty daunting to think of what we would really need to sacrifice in order to achieve their levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

we seem to be on parallel tracks..

An example of govt unconcern...?

In Q .. the Newman govt has removed the requirement that new build homes should have a rainwater tank..

...ostensibly because the cost reduction for a new build would encourage  more homes to be built..
Doesn't  make sense to me.  :(

Amadd wrote on May 10^th, 2013 at 5:06pm:

Yes Emma is a feminist. Do you really need to be told that? Just because Emma is female and a feminist, it doesn't stand true that all women are feminists and there is a requirement to be a feminist in order to post something about the barrier reef. Here's an example of a statement which has agreeable logic: Emma is a female and a feminist. All feminists are hypocrites. Emma is a hypocrite. In this statement, the logic follows, regardless of any requirement for a hypocrite to be a feminist or female, or indeed any requirement for a feminist to be female. The only assertion made in that example is that feminists are hypocrites. The short answer I gave you was "No, it's a non-sequitur", because the logic you used was false.

And yet you say all feminists are hypocrites?

As for my logic - you were the one calling her a feminist and making out it was because she wants to save the reef.

SOB

Quote:

And yet you say all feminists are hypocrites?

The (slightly tongue in cheek) example I gave you there Spot was to show that there is only one assertion made in the statement.


Quote:

As for my logic - you were the one calling her a feminist and making out it was because she wants to save the reef.

The conclusion you are coming to is like saying "All terrorists are Islamic, all muslims are Islamic, therefore all muslims are terrorists".

Didn't you once have something similar as a footnote?


If I was alluding to anything, it was the common misconception that jumping up and down telling companies not to make profits helps save the environment, when we all expect this country to be profitable enough to sustain something close to (or even better than) the lifestyle in which we've become accustomed.

bump???

I don't entirely agree with that.

The ONLY way things change..outside the square..IS if enough individuals get together and make lots of protests and pester their parliamentarian... for example.

You are suggesting there has never been a successful result from peaceful activism.
Surely not...  do you..?
...  there are many many examples to show your view is not so.

The difficulty is in getting ENOUGH people to commit...  but do NOT denigrate and minimise the power of public opinion and mutally beneficial activism.

Amadd wrote on May 11^th, 2013 at 10:30am:

If I was alluding to anything, it was the common misconception that jumping up and down telling companies not to make profits helps save the environment, when we all expect this country to be profitable enough to sustain something close to (or even better than) the lifestyle in which we've become accustomed.

We can tell those companies that are wrecking the reef to go around it for less profit.

SOB

Emma wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 1:50am:

I don't entirely agree with that. The ONLY way things change..outside the square..IS if enough individuals get together and make lots of protests and pester their parliamentarian... for example. You are suggesting there has never been a successful result from peaceful activism. Surely not...  do you..? ...  there are many many examples to show your view is not so. The difficulty is in getting ENOUGH people to commit...  but do NOT denigrate and minimise the power of public opinion and mutally beneficial activism.

Is that tough commitment is it? If you ask me it's weak as piss.

I'm not saying that environmental activism isn't beneficial in any way, but activists often point the finger with one hand whilst holding out the other for the spoils of company profits.

When I was involved with some of the protest dives against the deepening of the Port Phillip shipping channel, I saw plenty to convince me that although the people were well meaning, they seemed to disregard the ecological impact from a lot of their own actions.
There was Johnno who was so committed that he motored 2 hrs each way in his V8 ute to join the protest dives. There was Sonja with her brand new dry suit and Suunto dive computer. There was Tony and Jan who were jetting off to Vanuato the next week to dive the president Coolidge shipwreck. 

Ok, it's good that care was taken to cause minimal damage and special studies were done to ensure this.

If the deepening of the channel had not gone ahead at all, we would've required more ships to transport the same amount of cargo. So what do you do?

What you need to do is to get seriously tough, take the lead, and start walking the walk.
Take nothing from the government. Never use hospitals, medications, roads, buildings, parks, bridges, footpaths, etc. Use only self-generated power...if you don't have solar already, then fart into bottles made from coconuts. Grow your own fruit & vegies, make your own clothes with hand spun threads, capture your own water, hunt your own meat with handmade tools..never use manufactured tools  including cutlery. Make your own furniture..etc.,etc.,etc.

Then if we could all take your lead, the nation may have a chance of getting our carbon emissions to somewhere near that of Bangladesh, where it needs to be. ie: from 18.5 tonnes per person P.A. to 0.1
..and we can all stop climate change together  :)

:)
As I said,  that was one example...  ... the easiest... 

Your point is taken, however....
I agree that there are many fools who undo any good their protests may achieve, through their own actions , supposedly to make a difference. 

Is that IRONY or what.??

Stupidity and ignorance  ??and/or mis-directed good intentions..? 
Perhaps some value remains from their actions though...  not sufficient to off set their life-style, but something.
Raising awareness of the issues, to wider audiences is a step in the right direction,  and some folk need to be led...  as they say... A journey begins with the first step..... ,

:D 

I do agree it's too late....   BUT....
I believe ..if I'm going down,  I'm going down fighting.!!
I do fight...  in several different ways,  and I am just one person.  Just one person ...
I do my best  :)

I wouldn't think anybody a fool for trying to make a difference, but there are also the realities of what we're prepared to sacrifice.
No, I wouldn't want or expect anybody in this country to strive for a living standard like Bangladesh, however, it's striving for economic failure which works best for the environment atm.

Nobody in this country is realistically going to offset their carbon footprint, and without a bit of fun, nobody will have much incentive to do so.

Self-sacrifice doesn't work very well because it's not human nature. Swinging windmills doesn't work very well either.
The only options I see are: Somehow halve the population and also halve usage, or use nuclear power to help buffer the situation until a real renewable source is found.

Amadd wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Emma wrote on May 13th, 2013 at 1:50am: I don't entirely agree with that. The ONLY way things change..outside the square..IS if enough individuals get together and make lots of protests and pester their parliamentarian... for example. You are suggesting there has never been a successful result from peaceful activism. Surely not...  do you..? ...  there are many many examples to show your view is not so. The difficulty is in getting ENOUGH people to commit...  but do NOT denigrate and minimise the power of public opinion and mutally beneficial activism. Is that tough commitment is it? If you ask me it's weak as piss. I'm not saying that environmental activism isn't beneficial in any way, but activists often point the finger with one hand whilst holding out the other for the spoils of company profits. When I was involved with some of the protest dives against the deepening of the Port Phillip shipping channel, I saw plenty to convince me that although the people were well meaning, they seemed to disregard the ecological impact from a lot of their own actions. There was Johnno who was so committed that he motored 2 hrs each way in his V8 ute to join the protest dives. There was Sonja with her brand new dry suit and Suunto dive computer. There was Tony and Jan who were jetting off to Vanuato the next week to dive the president Coolidge shipwreck.  Ok, it's good that care was taken to cause minimal damage and special studies were done to ensure this. If the deepening of the channel had not gone ahead at all, we would've required more ships to transport the same amount of cargo. So what do you do? What you need to do is to get seriously tough, take the lead, and start walking the walk. Take nothing from the government. Never use hospitals, medications, roads, buildings, parks, bridges, footpaths, etc. Use only self-generated power...if you don't have solar already, then fart into bottles made from coconuts. Grow your own fruit & vegies, make your own clothes with hand spun threads, capture your own water, hunt your own meat with handmade tools..never use manufactured tools  including cutlery. Make your own furniture..etc.,etc.,etc. Then if we could all take your lead, the nation may have a chance of getting our carbon emissions to somewhere near that of Bangladesh, where it needs to be. ie: from 18.5 tonnes per person P.A. to 0.1 ..and we can all stop climate change together  :)

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/agree-nod.gif

Greenhouse emissions..  =  .9T (tonnes) pa
Source:
electricity bill
Gas .. used sparingly,..cooking, hot water ...? 45 kg cylinder pa
water..= rainfall captured in water tanks
travel = local .. 4 c petrol ..
no flying on holidays
no expensive toys like jet skis  or motorbikes, for example.


In mitigation of my harmful 'emissions'... 
I maintain 2.5 acres of forest...  some protected by legislation... some remnant gums.. and a creek..  a riparian corridor.... in the current heart of SEQ rampant development.
And thankfully... I am NOT  the only one. 

like I said .. I'm doing the best I  can  ... it 's paradise... and someone aught to try and look after it for as long as possible.

;D Glad you get it RP.

Emma wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

I've been achieving .9 kwh.

That's really great for personal usage, but I find it hard to believe considering what you mentioned.
Indirect usage such as infrastructure and social services needs to be added.

bump

well?

no updated op..? no pov to push,,??

guess I'm doing good then .. yeah..?? :) 

proof of the lie of Amadd's declaration........

" Nobody in this country is realistically going to offset their carbon footprint, and without a bit of fun, nobody will have much incentive to do so".

given up dude.??  not worth the effort...?

IF you saw what I see every day,.....   you wouldn't feel that way. :(

you'd keep on trying....

I'm saying that I do better than you Emma at being environmentally friendly, as well as having some fun along the way.
My excess carbon credits allow me to fly a plane once a week because I enjoy it and you work silly.

There ain't much chance of me becoming a martyr for you or any other prick on this earth.

Quote:

like I said .. I'm doing the best I  can  ... it 's paradise... and someone aught to try and look after it for as long as possible.

Then give it me and I'll make sure nobody develops it.

....why are people so unkind?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kmFB4eIv2r8/Rt-NiDU6RfI/AAAAAAAAAic/9Mk99QUlLys/s320/sad_monkey1.jpg

Emma wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Greenhouse emissions..  =  .9T (tonnes) pa Source: electricity bill Gas .. used sparingly,..cooking, hot water ...? 45 kg cylinder pa water..= rainfall captured in water tanks travel = local .. 4 c petrol .. no flying on holidays no expensive toys like jet skis  or motorbikes, for example. In mitigation of my harmful 'emissions'...  I maintain 2.5 acres of forest...  some protected by legislation... some remnant gums.. and a creek..  a riparian corridor.... in the current heart of SEQ rampant development. And thankfully... I am NOT  the only one.  like I said .. I'm doing the best I  can  ... it 's paradise... and someone aught to try and look after it for as long as possible.

The creek is useless if someone upstream pollutes it.

SOB

You've been a little quiet Emma.

I don't need to state the obvious that you stated lies whilst calling me a liar do I?

Now you may have an inkling of why I have bandied around the word "hypocrite".

Nature has an historical habit of expunging species like the Human Species

We don't have much time left

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/pictures/10000/nahled/thinking-monkey-11282237747K8xB.jpg

yeah 

that's Chimp Logic.

(no offense intended)

we haven't got much time left, so we'd better get in and use as much as we can, have as good a time as we can...  while we still can.

Seems to be the view of quite a few i would say.

:(

Emma wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 2:03am:

yeah  that's Chimp Logic. (no offense intended) we haven't got much time left, so we'd better get in and use as much as we can, have as good a time as we can...  while we still can. Seems to be the view of quite a few i would say. :(

...this attitude has contributed greatly to the mess that we are in at the moment. You cannot offend your own brethren

Unfortunately the sociopaths, psychopaths and lunatics have always been in the corridors of power.

These corridors are commonly known today as corporations - the most fascist Un-democratic instrument of tyranny invented by the homosapien infection of the planet.

Even the silver backs are meditating, but I fear that their efforts will be in vein - especially from the confines of their corporate zoological dungeons

    http://images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/monkey-meditating_m.jpg

Just be sure to recycle those banana skins Chimp.
..but be sure to save one to leave on Emma's driveway for when she steps out of her clean green automobile, it might knock a little sense into her.

Oh..that's if you can get past her electric fences and state of the art security system which apparently don't use power. And don't trip on those clean green water pumps.
Being a chimp. maybe you can scale the roof without slipping on all of those solar panels ???
;D ;D ;D

;D
you are a cack Amadd...   ;D

From the results of the Poll  it is clear that many people see the dangers ahead.

what is there to gain in denial..??

don't know ...  do you?? ( you= everyone)  What are your ideas as to why people continue to support governments that continue down the same old road to DESTRUCTION.??

Emma wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:48pm:

From the results of the Poll  it is clear that many people see the dangers ahead. what is there to gain in denial..?? don't know ...  do you?? ( you= everyone)  What are your ideas as to why people continue to support governments that continue down the same old road to DESTRUCTION.??

A poll sample size of 10 implies that very little statistically significant conclusions can be drawn from the results

common sense overrides this deficiency anyway

http://nazret.com/blog/media/blogs/new/monkey.JPG

ahhh ..commonsense is in short supply.

Emma wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

ahhh ..commonsense is in short supply.

actually common sense is in abundance - sadly those that run the circus are corporatized clown puppets.

THey value short term profit, greed, exploitation etc above everything else that is decent in human existence

NB: the official CO2 concentration in the earths atmosphere has hit the 400 ppmv level for the first time in many millions of years.

And the response from Humanity?

MORE Carbon Emissions

seems you have the last word CL...   :(

Amadd wrote on May 13^th, 2013 at 11:50pm:

I'm saying that I do better than you Emma at being environmentally friendly, as well as having some fun along the way. My excess carbon credits allow me to fly a plane once a week because I enjoy it and you work silly. There ain't much chance of me becoming a martyr for you or any other prick on this earth.

But no one cares. You are trying to make people care but you are simply a spark that has left the fire that no one cares about!

If you're environmentally friendly tell us how you're environmentally friendly and all will be forgiven, namaste.

Otherwise, I've got crack to smoke!!

  :'( :'(  ::)  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

hey deathray..!!   ;D :D

jeez  I missed that post by Amadd.... 

:-? :P

But no one cares. You are trying to make people care but you are simply a spark that has left the fire that no one cares about!


Quote:

If you're environmentally friendly tell us how you're environmentally friendly and all will be forgiven, namaste. Otherwise, I've got crack to smoke!!   ::) :-/ :'(@#$ ;D :( >:(@#$ >:(%^

;D I realised long ago that people don't care.

Car=gas Electricity=solar Bike=personal effort Shoes=4 pair Crackpipe=0

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 4:29pm:

Amadd wrote on May 13th, 2013 at 11:50pm: I'm saying that I do better than you Emma at being environmentally friendly, as well as having some fun along the way. My excess carbon credits allow me to fly a plane once a week because I enjoy it and you work silly. There ain't much chance of me becoming a martyr for you or any other prick on this earth. But no one cares.

...so you are saying that 100% of the earth's population is just like you?

God help us!

Emma wrote on May 31^st, 2013 at 11:13pm:

hey deathray..!!   ;D :D jeez  I missed that post by Amadd....  :-? :P

I've got ya back  8-) 8-) !

;) ;)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 11:14am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31st, 2013 at 4:29pm: Amadd wrote on May 13th, 2013 at 11:50pm: I'm saying that I do better than you Emma at being environmentally friendly, as well as having some fun along the way. My excess carbon credits allow me to fly a plane once a week because I enjoy it and you work silly. There ain't much chance of me becoming a martyr for you or any other prick on this earth. But no one cares.    ...so you are saying that 100% of the earth's population is just like you? God help us!

Figure of speech, monkey breath!  ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 4^th, 2013 at 2:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 4th, 2013 at 11:14am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31st, 2013 at 4:29pm: Amadd wrote on May 13th, 2013 at 11:50pm: I'm saying that I do better than you Emma at being environmentally friendly, as well as having some fun along the way. My excess carbon credits allow me to fly a plane once a week because I enjoy it and you work silly. There ain't much chance of me becoming a martyr for you or any other prick on this earth. But no one cares.    ...so you are saying that 100% of the earth's population is just like you? God help us! Figure of speech, monkey breath!  ;) ;)

I see.

So when YOU say that NO-ONE CARES what precisely do you mean you freak ass clown puppet sloth
http://www.graphics99.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/funny-monkey-smoking-picture.jpg

;D That's not very nice Chimp.

I think that most people do care, quite a lot...
however, there is always a however.

That however is that is that we expect a certain quality of life here in Australia, which would be non-existent without us using resources to attain that quality.

Good medical care, good roads, good education facilities, good retirement funds, water, electricity, government, environmental protection, etc.
It all costs money, and that money comes from selling.

Of course I'm not saying it's OK to blast away the barrier reef by any means. It seems that global warming is doing a pretty good job of that without our specific intervention, just like the sinking Maldives.

So, we can squeeze our personal usage of fossil fuel energy as much as we can and hope that it won't just be a green light for further population (economic) growth.

We can sacrifice infrastructure and quality for the economic growth fairy which will use those sacrifices to turn the screws even further. Or maybe we can work towards an economy built upon more self-reliance, like that of the yesteryears which didn't expect everybody to come running at a whim.

blah. Theres no valid reason we couldn't change over to solar and wind inthis country. the palmers and rhineharts wouldn't like it though so we dont. I got a taxi yesterday and noticed it was electric. I asked about it and apparently about a 3rd of the yellow cabs here are electric and it hasnt been mentioned in the media. I guess taxi fares wont go up from the carbon price . . . .

SOB

I'm sure that if fossil fuels were to run out tomorrow, we'd have an alternate system up and running within a year.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:01am:

blah. Theres no valid reason we couldn't change over to solar and wind inthis country. the palmers and rhineharts wouldn't like it though so we dont. I got a taxi yesterday and noticed it was electric. I asked about it and apparently about a 3rd of the yellow cabs here are electric and it hasnt been mentioned in the media. I guess taxi fares wont go up from the carbon price . . . . SOB

I don't think it would worry either of them since most of the thermal and indeed coking coal goes overseas and not here; which is why it is our largest export.


Just wonder how we would pay for all of our power stations to be shutdown and new power station to be brought on line?

Each one say a billion or two and maybe 100 to 200 power stations (yep just a guess) to be replaced; who is paying for all of this infrastructure?


Or don't you consider not having the money to pay for stuff a valid reason not to have it?


We North Queenlslanders have been waiting for a base load power station (our first) for decades and no-one can or wants to find the money for it.  >:(

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 4:10pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2013 at 5:01am: blah. Theres no valid reason we couldn't change over to solar and wind inthis country. the palmers and rhineharts wouldn't like it though so we dont. I got a taxi yesterday and noticed it was electric. I asked about it and apparently about a 3rd of the yellow cabs here are electric and it hasnt been mentioned in the media. I guess taxi fares wont go up from the carbon price . . . . SOB I don't think it would worry either of them since most of the thermal and indeed coking coal goes overseas and not here; which is why it is our largest export. Just wonder how we would pay for all of our power stations to be shutdown and new power station to be brought on line? Each one say a billion or two and maybe 100 to 200 power stations (yep just a guess) to be replaced; who is paying for all of this infrastructure? Or don't you consider not having the money to pay for stuff a valid reason not to have it? We North Queenlslanders have been waiting for a base load power station (our first) for decades and no-one can or wants to find the money for it.  >:(

The AUstralian mining and energy resource sector is 83% foreign owned.

Also a majority of the power stations, which are almost all coal fired, are foreign owned as well (NSW also going down the privatisation pathway, just like Victoria)

On top of that the mining and energy sector employs about 3% of the total Australian workforce. In fact there are more people employed in the Queensland tourism industry than the entire mining and energy sectors.

As far as your comment on base load power in North Queensland is concerned, what a great opportunity to invest in solar thermal - just like Spain, the USA and many other nations have done.

And you have perfect sunshine for it!! And its base load technology that uses molten salts to store energy during the night.

cheers!

http://www.soulehypnosis.com/images/chimpanzee%20smoking.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

The AUstralian mining and energy resource sector is 83% foreign owned. Also a majority of the power stations, which are almost all coal fired, are foreign owned as well (NSW also going down the privatisation pathway, just like Victoria) On top of that the mining and energy sector employs about 3% of the total Australian workforce. In fact there are more people employed in the Queensland tourism industry than the entire mining and energy sectors. As far as your comment on base load power in North Queensland is concerned, what a great opportunity to invest in solar thermal - just like Spain, the USA and many other nations have done. And you have perfect sunshine for it!! And its base load technology that uses molten salts to store energy during the night. cheers!

Sh1t, if BHP, reinhart, palmer, twiggy and the rest own so little, why is everyone so up in arms about their minuscule efforts? But I, as you digress.

If you google copper string project, which we NTH QLDers spent a lot of time and effort to try and get going, included the latest in green power; but such is not to be.

You would be hard pressed to find 650 000 people anywhere outside of a third world country that doesn't have base load power close by. Well we're just the cash register for south east Queensland and that's all that has ever mattered to them.  >:(

so keep on your locals about alternatives.

Hey ..expect no help from the Newman Govt...they listen only to their preferred team.. 

hence the opening up of National Parks... yep  NATIONAL PARKS  for cattle grazing,  again. ..    >:(
A policy belonging decades in the past..  One example. ! >:(

the 'easing of 'green tape'  (their spin) ... which enables landowners,  once again,  to clear vegetation.. virtually at will.!!

DISGUSTING...!!! 


CL..??  your stats re foreign ownership are indeed poignant. 

Seems we LIVE here... but every rich cnt in the world can do as they please. >:(
massively EMPOWERED by Newman Govt Policy.   

SHAME   SHAME  SHAME

THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS AT GREAT RISK........

no snorkelling in oil sludge.. :(
 

Emma wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

hence the opening up of National Parks... yep  NATIONAL PARKS  for cattle grazing,  again. ..    >:( A policy belonging decades in the past..  One example. ! >:(

Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord.

First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks.

So it is not opening up pristine national parks to grazing just for sh1ts and giggles but using ex-grazing land to prevent starvation.


But your insane rant is good too.


You southerners are beyong clueless and that is why you are so friggen dangerous, look after your back yard and we'll look after ours.  >:(

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 5th, 2013 at 5:00pm: The AUstralian mining and energy resource sector is 83% foreign owned. Also a majority of the power stations, which are almost all coal fired, are foreign owned as well (NSW also going down the privatisation pathway, just like Victoria) On top of that the mining and energy sector employs about 3% of the total Australian workforce. In fact there are more people employed in the Queensland tourism industry than the entire mining and energy sectors. As far as your comment on base load power in North Queensland is concerned, what a great opportunity to invest in solar thermal - just like Spain, the USA and many other nations have done. And you have perfect sunshine for it!! And its base load technology that uses molten salts to store energy during the night. cheers! Sh1t, if BHP, reinhart, palmer, twiggy and the rest own so little, why is everyone so up in arms about their minuscule efforts? But I, as you digress. If you google copper string project, which we NTH QLDers spent a lot of time and effort to try and get going, included the latest in green power; but such is not to be. You would be hard pressed to find 650 000 people anywhere outside of a third world country that doesn't have base load power close by. Well we're just the cash register for south east Queensland and that's all that has ever mattered to them.  >:(

lol,

BHP is over 50% foreign owned and RIO Tinto is about 80% foreign owned

Overall the mining and energy resources sectors in Australia is 83% foreign owned. 55% of that foreign ownership is in the hands of multinational US corporate giants.

When you talk about Palmer, Reinhart and Twiggy you are talking about 12% ownership of the resources sector (combined)

In fact Palmer, Reinhart and Twiggy aren't the problem even though they are very wealthy and pay little tax. But at least they are AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS and declare their assets and profits under the Australian umbrella. Unlike the 83% of shareholders who mainly live in the financial capitals of the USA etc...

Notice how the face of the mining industry that the media loves to bash is the Clive, Reinhart and Twiggy faces?

Looks like 83% foreign ownership is NOT ENOUGH for these foreign US corporations - they want it ALL - and they will get it too.

The TV networks in Australia are also foreign owned by US and Canadian private equity groups. Kind of explains their media agenda doesn't it? You think these foreign media attack dogs will question the foreign ownership of Australias biggest wealth assets? They don't even publicise the fact. Instead they attack the easy targets of Twiggy, Clive and GIna in their foreign owned corporate spinned up media machines.

Australia must be the dumbest nation on the planet - by far!

Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord.

First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks.

So it is not opening up pristine national parks to grazing just for sh1ts and giggles but using ex-grazing land to prevent starvation.


But your insane rant is good too.


You southerners are beyong clueless and that is why you are so friggen dangerous, look after your back yard and we'll look after ours. ...- BIG Ol64


Ahhh you mean those thousands of cattle that were destined to be the cattle for  'live export' .

THAT is an 'industry'  ( a crime)  that should cease forever. 
GREED  knows nothing of humanity or limits.

That these cattle producers are whining... ::)
FIND A BETTER WAY>>  !!!!!!!!  :(  Most of these cattle, if not all, were to be sold overseas...  true..?? 
How about putting that beef to good use.. ?? sell it at major discounts on the Oz market...  sooo???  what...you lose money..??  thats life.. and karma ... if you choose such a vile means of making money.

Don't turn  land that is recovering from previous human onslaughts back to the 70's to support this..!!
..IT SUCKS... >:(


and hey oldude just 'cos you're FNQ, and I'm SEQ ... doesn't make me a southerner. >:(

Emma wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

[i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks.

...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing?

were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land?

Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people

hey CL 

you misquoted me... that was BigOl64.

I'm with you.  :)
And you maybe interested to know ...if you do not already that now,  the doctrine Terra Nullius   (whatever :-?)  has been overturned. Basically ...  E Mabo's actions eventually overturned it.   ;D :) :)

Emma wrote on Jun 6^th, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. So it is not opening up pristine national parks to grazing just for sh1ts and giggles but using ex-grazing land to prevent starvation. But your insane rant is good too. You southerners are beyong clueless and that is why you are so friggen dangerous, look after your back yard and we'll look after ours. ...- BIG Ol64 Ahhh you mean those thousands of cattle that were destined to be the cattle for  'live export' . THAT is an 'industry'  ( a crime)  that should cease forever.  GREED  knows nothing of humanity or limits. That these cattle producers are whining... ::) FIND A BETTER WAY>>  !!!!!!!!  :(  Most of these cattle, if not all, were to be sold overseas...  true..??  How about putting that beef to good use.. ?? sell it at major discounts on the Oz market...  sooo???  what...you lose money..??  thats life.. and karma ... if you choose such a vile means of making money. Don't turn  land that is recovering from previous human onslaughts back to the 70's to support this..!! ..IT SUCKS... >:( and hey oldude just 'cos you're FNQ, and I'm SEQ ... doesn't make me a southerner. >:(

Yeah it does, very much so and you're fvcken insane to boot.


That was one very disconnected ramble of a speech which seems to base soley on your own ignorant opinions.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 9:35am:

Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people

I stand corrected the pair of you are friggen certifiable.


Nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

really..??

we're crazy,  and you are correct.
That's what you think, cos what?? only crazy people would disagree with you,...?

I bet you secretly idolise JOH too... just like that brickhead Glen Lazarus... :D  :-? ::) :P :)

ah ha..  ;D ;D :D

I got it right!!  oh delight delight   :)

... you are a filthy Joh-lover.! 
Your failure to respond says it all.  Hang your head in shame you fwit.
Lie down down with fleas and you get up with FWITS,..!! 


You were all probably mates ...in your sick dreams,   redneck hick.  :D :D :D

BigOl64   ;D ;D  ...you are a nasty piece of work, as I see on other places in this forum... so..??

you know what you can do ???
(oh I'm  sure your imagination allows plenty of room for fantasy) ;D

.. perhaps I'll leave it at that WANKER.
 

yeah  -- you just lost out to Quantum as major troll of the forum..     well my vote went to Quewpydoll ....but only just.

YOU  are a disgrace... a blight... a piece of snot sticking to the screen.
Slide off fwit.

Yes, those last three posts were definitely the thoughts of a sane person.  ;D  ;D  ;D

Emma wrote on Jun 5^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

so keep on your locals about alternatives. Hey ..expect no help from the Newman Govt...they listen only to their preferred team..  hence the opening up of National Parks... yep  NATIONAL PARKS  for cattle grazing,  again. ..    >:( A policy belonging decades in the past..  One example. ! >:( the 'easing of 'green tape'  (their spin) ... which enables landowners,  once again,  to clear vegetation.. virtually at will.!! DISGUSTING...!!!  CL..??  your stats re foreign ownership are indeed poignant.  Seems we LIVE here... but every rich cnt in the world can do as they please. >:( massively EMPOWERED by Newman Govt Policy.    SHAME   SHAME  SHAME THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS AT GREAT RISK........ no snorkelling in oil sludge.. :(

THE NEWMAN GOVT, ACCORDING LEVEL 8 PUBLIC SERVANTS JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE, IS JUST ONE OF THOSE GOVERNMENTS!

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 9^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

Yes, those last three posts were definitely the thoughts of a sane person.  ;D  ;D  ;D

just like some of your posts vilifying other posters...  like Pansi for example.  THAT you cannot deny....  :)

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 6:50pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:35am: Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people I stand corrected the pair of you are friggen certifiable. Nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

...the classic response from one who has been publically exposed as a immoral corporatised clown puppet

congratulations!

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7^th, 2013 at 9:35am:

Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people

Actually Terra NULLIUS means 'land belonging to no one', it means that that it has never been under the control of any state or government.

Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's occupied.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:35am: Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people Actually Terra NULLIUS means 'land belonging to no one', it means that that it has never been under the control of any state or government. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's occupied.

You just posted a disingenuous statement in public,

Do you know WHERE in AUstralia the British made the Terra Nullius declaration? HINT - it wasn't on the mainland, conveniently.

Do you know WHY the British declared Terra Nullius post invasion?

Australia is the only commonwealth country without a TREATY with the original people of this land.

And that's because there were NO people here according to the British. Legally, the British fascist forces classified the Indigenous peoples of Australia under the same class as fauna - ie plants and animals. This was legally the case until the referendum that was passed in 1967.

You cannot declare Terra Nullius on a territory if PEOPLE are already living and occupying the land.

This is exactly WHY the British declared Terra Nullius on a remote un-inhabited island, and then transferred that classification to the rest of Australia.

Check the facts before you gallop in here with your deceiving excrement and deflectionary racist fascist dogma

cheers

http://www.petsfoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Smoking-Monkeys7.jpg

Emma wrote on Jun 9^th, 2013 at 10:27pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 9th, 2013 at 8:28am: Yes, those last three posts were definitely the thoughts of a sane person.  ;D  ;D  ;D just like some of your posts vilifying other posters...  like Pansi for example.  THAT you cannot deny....  :)

Why would I deny vilifying pansi, she is a vile human being that deserves everything she gets and more.


My response to you after your little tirade (vilification) was reasonable and apt, your attack on me was certifiable insane. It had nothing what-so-ever to do with what I wrote.



People get from me nothing more than they deserve, behave like a sane human being and you will be treated like one.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 11^th, 2013 at 9:53am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 6:50pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:35am: Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people I stand corrected the pair of you are friggen certifiable. Nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote. ...the classic response from one who has been publically exposed as a immoral corporatised clown puppet congratulations!

Your insane rant about british invasion/fascism had nothing at all to do with feeding starving cattle on previous grazing land converted into national park. So I stand by my accusation of insanity, which also has nothing to do with my exposure to corporatisation.  ;D


Remember I only discussed feeding of cattle on previously run grazing land, nothing else; so buck up insane clown posse; nothing else was part of my discussion.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 10:26am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 14th, 2013 at 10:09am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:35am: Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people Actually Terra NULLIUS means 'land belonging to no one', it means that that it has never been under the control of any state or government. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's occupied. You just posted a disingenuous statement in public, Do you know WHERE in AUstralia the British made the Terra Nullius declaration? HINT - it wasn't on the mainland, conveniently. Do you know WHY the British declared Terra Nullius post invasion? Australia is the only commonwealth country without a TREATY with the original people of this land. And that's because there were NO people here according to the British. Legally, the British fascist forces classified the Indigenous peoples of Australia under the same class as fauna - ie plants and animals. This was legally the case until the referendum that was passed in 1967. You cannot declare Terra Nullius on a territory if PEOPLE are already living and occupying the land. This is exactly WHY the British declared Terra Nullius on a remote un-inhabited island, and then transferred that classification to the rest of Australia. Check the facts before you gallop in here with your deceiving excrement and deflectionary racist fascist dogma cheers

Actually you can declare Terra Nullius on occupied land. The reason the British did so in Australia is that they couldn't find a central Aboriginal authority that was able to sign treaties, and that there was no recognisable political organisations that they could find.

You might also want to check the facts, in this case International Laws, rather than going straight from radical land rights websites.

I'm really annoyed that you keep using an incorrect quote from me,  as the central post... THAT QUOTE   of 6 June was a simple stuff-up by someone ..CL? perhaps,  not accustomed to the way  the QUOTE function works. 
(i still haven't worked it out.. a slight twitch,, and lordy lordy,, anything can appear.  ::))
ANY HOW  my point...

I DID"NT SAY WHAT IS ESPOUSED ...THAT WAS ANOTHER POSTER...  i HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP PREVIOUSLY...

CEASE AND DESIST FROM MISQUOTING ME... 
IN CONTINUING TO DO SO ...  >:(YOUR ARGUMENT BECOMES BOGUS AND IRRELEVANT........... 

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 14^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 14th, 2013 at 10:26am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 14th, 2013 at 10:09am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Jun 7th, 2013 at 9:35am: Emma wrote on Jun 6th, 2013 at 9:51pm: [i]Good thing sanity is not a requirment for posting on this baord. First up tens of thousands of cattle need feed or they will starve to death in the paddocks. Secondly these national parks are ex-pastoral land, yes not so long ago they were cattle farms and have since been  converted into national parks. ...and what were these lands prior to Cook landing? were there any introduced pests such as cows and sheep present prior to the invasion, theft of land and genocidal practices perpetrated by the English imperial fascist hoards upon the original inhabitants of this great land? Although according to the British, this land was classified under the convenient phrase Terra Nallius - a land void of people Actually Terra NULLIUS means 'land belonging to no one', it means that that it has never been under the control of any state or government. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's occupied. You just posted a disingenuous statement in public, Do you know WHERE in AUstralia the British made the Terra Nullius declaration? HINT - it wasn't on the mainland, conveniently. Do you know WHY the British declared Terra Nullius post invasion? Australia is the only commonwealth country without a TREATY with the original people of this land. And that's because there were NO people here according to the British. Legally, the British fascist forces classified the Indigenous peoples of Australia under the same class as fauna - ie plants and animals. This was legally the case until the referendum that was passed in 1967. You cannot declare Terra Nullius on a territory if PEOPLE are already living and occupying the land. This is exactly WHY the British declared Terra Nullius on a remote un-inhabited island, and then transferred that classification to the rest of Australia. Check the facts before you gallop in here with your deceiving excrement and deflectionary racist fascist dogma cheers Actually you can declare Terra Nullius on occupied land. The reason the British did so in Australia is that they couldn't find a central Aboriginal authority that was able to sign treaties, and that there was no recognisable political organisations that they could find. You might also want to check the facts, in this case International Laws, rather than going straight from radical land rights websites.

Really?

Explains why the invading British made the Terra Nullius declaration on a remote uninhabited island and then transferred that declaration to the rest of the continent.

What is this international law that you refer to that allows for the theft of an entire continent, the enslavement of its people, the practice of genocide, the NON-compensation of the original inhabitants and the total avoidance of any treaty arrangements.

You must be talking about piracy and terrorist based fascism here.

Surely that's not part of international law?

Take you guilt ridden apologetics and racist garbage elsewhere you immoral clown puppet freak maggot

http://www.desicomments.com/funnypics/funnymonkey7.jpg

Guys - ok I'm coming in late here, but please show some respect for other posters. Attack the views, but not the poster. Any more of this will result in suspensions.

you mean I'm NOT insane ??  :D

that's a relief. :)

:D
Emma wrote on Jun 24^th, 2013 at 8:37pm:

you mean I'm NOT insane ??  :D that's a relief. :)

No you're still certifiable.

A quick reading of your posts to me will more than verify that.

In fact they are your words..... quoted under my name  BigOldirtbag....  you espouse concern for thousands of starving cattle, being saved from starvation by opening National Park Lands,  that were ONCE pasture, but now rehabilitated.

See DirtBag... that is all about the greed and need of primary producers who had a lucrative but dirty business in Live trade to our asian neighbours.... careless of their treatment at the hands of the purchasers... assuming they survive the trip.!!!! and now YOu are worried enough for these poor beasts  ::) ::)
Joke Son....  :P

these pastoralists stocked up big time to feed this depraved and despicable trade... and now their decision ...their business decision... is biting them on the arse... so they want the land to once again PAY for THEIR mistakes.

Tough titties guys.... not ALL business is GOOD  business.... we should never again ship live sheep or cattle overseas.
We should NEVER again open up native forest or National Parks to business venturers... they are not to be trusted and should pay for their own stuff-ups. :)

Emma wrote on Jun 25^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

In fact they are your words..... quoted under my name  BigOldirtbag....  you espouse concern for thousands of starving cattle, being saved from starvation by opening National Park Lands,  that were ONCE pasture, but now rehabilitated. See DirtBag... that is all about the greed and need of primary producers who had a lucrative but dirty business in Live trade to our asian neighbours.... careless of their treatment at the hands of the purchasers... assuming they survive the trip.!!!! and now YOu are worried enough for these poor beasts  ::) ::) Joke Son....  :P these pastoralists stocked up big time to feed this depraved and despicable trade... and now their decision ...their business decision... is biting them on the arse... so they want the land to once again PAY for THEIR mistakes. Tough titties guys.... not ALL business is GOOD  business.... we should never again ship live sheep or cattle overseas. We should NEVER again open up native forest or National Parks to business venturers... they are not to be trusted and should pay for their own stuff-ups. :)

Yeah, not what I was talking about, but it does add to you list of insane rants.  ;D


There is so much crazy arse drivel, I understand how you lose track of what you have written.