Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        .

Don't forget forced labour via WfD, working for a pittance and no credit, planting trees.

That'll be a major component of Tony's 'idea'.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        .

What climate phuking change? Climate change topics should be placed in the New Religions and Cults department.

why would anyone object to working for their money?

why do bludgers think they have the right just to sit on their fat asses only to get off it once a fortnight to go cash a welfare cheque that is paid by Australian WORKERS?

salad in wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:50pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . What climate phuking change? Climate change topics should be placed in the New Religions and Cults department.

Come on SI, you don't believe that. Truth is you don't want to lift a finger to prevent the disaster that awaits your fellow humans (and probably your own family and children) because you wont be here to see it.  So you make up this lie that you don't believe in climate change when you couldn't possibly be qualified to make that judgment contrary to the overwhelming opinion of the climate experts who work in the field. Come on admit it.  You don't really give a Fu!k that its true because you don't want to put yourself out.  At least have the courage to say what and who you are.       

True Blue... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:

why would anyone object to working for their money? why do bludgers think they have the right just to sit on their fat asses only to get off it once a fortnight to go cash a welfare cheque that is paid by Australian WORKERS?

My experiance in the past is that those who scream the loudest about dole bludgers tend to have done a great deal of bludging of their own in the past, especially those who make a big show of draping themselves in the flag   

True Blue... wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:

why would anyone object to working for their money? why do bludgers think they have the right just to sit on their fat asses only to get off it once a fortnight to go cash a welfare cheque that is paid by Australian WORKERS?

Why do you assume they're bludgers?

You really do come across as having no idea, but a lot of bigotry.

BTW, I've no issue with getting the unemployed to plant trees.

But, pay them a decent wage for doing so, FFS!!

Not the rubbish WfD payment.

Germans discover overlooked climate change factor


German scientists say they've identified a previously overlooked factor in climate change.

In a study just published, they say one effect of global warming is that the oceans will release less of a gas which helps shield the Earth from the sun's radiation.

That means the oceans themselves will act as a significant contributor to climate change.

An Australian expert says it's a very significant study and she agrees with the authors that it should be factored into future climate change projections.

more here


http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/germans-discover-overlooked-climate-change-factor/1181690


now we can add another 0.5 degree of warming to estimates.

Kat wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:56pm: why would anyone object to working for their money? why do bludgers think they have the right just to sit on their fat asses only to get off it once a fortnight to go cash a welfare cheque that is paid by Australian WORKERS? Why do you assume they're bludgers? You really do come across as having no idea, but a lot of bigotry. BTW, I've no issue with getting the unemployed to plant trees. But, pay them a decent wage for doing so, FFS!! Not the rubbish WfD payment.

im sure there's people out there that will get off their butts and have a go...

they are the ones who don't incessantly complain non stop about getting "their" money (welfare) and spending it on what ever they want... smokes, alcohol and pokie machines... as though they somehow think the WORLD owes them a living...

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 8:12pm:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:56pm: why would anyone object to working for their money? why do bludgers think they have the right just to sit on their fat asses only to get off it once a fortnight to go cash a welfare cheque that is paid by Australian WORKERS? My experiance in the past is that those who scream the loudest about dole bludgers tend to have done a great deal of bludging of their own in the past, especially those who make a big show of draping themselves in the flag

Your personal experience... ;D ;D ;D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 8:07pm:

Come on SI, you don't believe that. Truth is you don't want to lift a finger to prevent the disaster that awaits your fellow humans (and probably your own family and children) because you wont be here to see it.  So you make up this lie that you don't believe in climate change when you couldn't possibly be qualified to make that judgment contrary to the overwhelming opinion of the climate experts who work in the field. Come on admit it.  You don't really give a Fu!k that its true because you don't want to put yourself out.  At least have the courage to say what and who you are.

IS2, I usually get the Mormons or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints knocking on my door spreading the word of sweet Jesus (who is rich in mercy). I turn them away. In your case it seems those with a message from the make believe world have taken to pounding away at the keyboard to spread the word. You can't disarm me with a warm smile and a silly look on your face; I smell religion. I have my own religion; I am a New Age Muslim and as such I hate you and want to see you beheaded or at least have a limb hacked off. Ain't religion swell?

True Blue... wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 7:39am:

they are the ones who don't incessantly complain non stop about getting "their" money (welfare) and spending it on what ever they want...

So you think other people should decide what they spend their money on?

What's the rationale behind that?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        .

Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done?

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 7:39am: they are the ones who don't incessantly complain non stop about getting "their" money (welfare) and spending it on what ever they want... So you think other people should decide what they spend their money on? What's the rationale behind that?

To try and stop people spending “welfare” on illicit drugs for starters. Or do you think welfare should be used to break the law?

Welfare recipients should be helped to restrict their spending on alcohol, cigarettes and tattoos as well.

And gambling.

And facial piercings.

We should also help fat welfare recipients.

None of these are necessities; they are selfish indulgences for people receiving welfare, usually to the detriment of families.

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done?

First, it is simply not correct to say that if Australia "ceased all emissions tomorrow it wouldn’t make I iota [sic] of difference to world wide emissions" 

I don't know the proportion of world CO2 emissions Australia is responsible for but it does appear to be accepted that on a per capita basis Australians are the highest emitters of any developed country.  On that basis alone we should be doing our bit rather than expecting others from poorer countries, with much lower living standards and harder working conditions to carry us. At the very least we should continue with a Trading Emissions Scheme (over 50 jurisdictions around the world including the UK (conservative government) Europe and China run a TES and most suffered far more then we did during the Great Recession). But in my opinion we should definitely keep a carbon tax on the books that more truly reflects the price we all pay for carbon emissions because, amongst other things, a price on carbon will promote renewable electricity generation; give us and business a stronger incentive to use energy more wisely, drive innovations in technology, and hopefully will arrest this mad philosophy that we must consume, consume and consume more until we drop.

Despite your harsh attitude to people on the dole, you seem to think that its OK for Australians to do nothing and expect the rest of the world to pay the price to fix/mitigate the climate change problem. Sorry but one has to ask, whose the bludger?   

It's about time our major carbon pollution we export were paying their way.

Coal export levy proposed by Australian Greens

Thermal coal exports should have a $2 a tonne levy imposed on them to raise $350 million a year for flood mitigation projects, the Australian Greens say.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/coal-export-levy-proposed-by-australian-greens-20130725-2ql3p.html


Abbott wants to be government so will want to fun Direct Inaction and his parental leave scheme for the rich so will want more income.

Here it is Mr Abbott.

salad in wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 8:34am:

IS2, I usually get the Mormons or members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints knocking on my door spreading the word of sweet Jesus (who is rich in mercy). I turn them away. In your case it seems those with a message from the make believe world have taken to pounding away at the keyboard to spread the word. You can't disarm me with a warm smile and a silly look on your face; I smell religion. I have my own religion; I am a New Age Muslim and as such I hate you and want to see you beheaded or at least have a limb hacked off. Ain't religion swell?

Hey SI, that's OK, I didn't expect you to have the courage to honestly answer the question.   

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done?

Well, it is POSSIBLE that OZ could cease all emissions tomorrow? But, on a scale of
1 - Being, we absolutely will cease tomorrow &
1 Trillion (or 1,000,000,000,000) - Being, we absolutely won't cease tomorrow

Then, I would suggest that our likely chances of ceasing tomorrow would probably rate around 999,999,999,999. 

I would also suggest that it is incorrect to say that OZ ceasing all emissions won't make 1 iota of difference, BUT I would certainly say that,  ON OUR OWN, AUSTRALIA WOULDN'T/WON'T STOP CLIMATE CHANGE or have any substantial effect!

Finally, I would suggest, the real question that needs to be asked is -
IF AUSTRALIA & THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DON'T ACT SOON & DON'T THROW EVERYTHING AT THE PROBLEM, THEN WHAT WILL BE THE LIKELY EFFECTS, IN OUR LATER YEARS & ON FOLLOWING GENERATIONS?

Regrettably, I have an idea of what the likelihood is of Local & Global action & what will flow from that & the answer is not one which you & many others want to hear!

So what exactly is wrong with this - better than the Carbon Tax that hurts everyone and helps the environment not one iota.

Abbott to launch revamped green Army policy 

by:      Gemma Jones Political Reporter      
From:            News Limited Network      
July 05, 2013 12:32AM      

Will green turn to gold for Abbott?
     
Tony Abbott thinks it's time Australia turned over a new leaf.            
     

AN Abbott "Green Army" of 15,000 young Australians recruited to rejuvenate bushland and waterways would be deployed around the country under a Coalition government. 
     
Young people aged 17 -24 would be paid up to $16.03 an hour for six months' work and could use the experience towards certificate qualifications in land management and horticulture.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said his policy revamped from the 2010 election campaign would encourage thousands of young Australians to work outdoors.

In his first visit to the region since Kevin Rudd put Labor back in contention in key western Sydney seats, Mr Abbott will today announce his army would start on five projects along the banks of the Georges River in southwestern Sydney.

"The Green Army is good for the local environment and good for young Australians," Mr Abbott said yesterday.

"It will see thousands of young people getting the opportunity to work outdoors and have real, hands-on experience in making their local community a better place.

"I want young Australians to gain a meaningful understanding of what it is like to be part of something bigger than themselves."

Mr Abbott said his army would be "the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia's history".

Local community groups and councils already engaged in bushcare and remediation work would be able to use green army workers on local projects.

Nine workers and a supervisor would make up each team, which could be deployed to local remediation projects across the country.

In addition to wages, a Coalition government would pay for equipment and materials required for remediation work.

The Coalition hopes the policy would also provide a pathway to work for young people.

Training provided could lead recruits into roles with councils, national parks and horticulture, according to policy documents.

"There are hundreds of organisations and local environmental groups across Australia that are already doing some of this work, mostly on a volunteer basis, and they deserve our recognition for making this country a better, cleaner and safer place," the policy states.

"These groups, plus local councils, could submit conservation projects that require a significant labour force."


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/tony-abbott-to-launch-revamped-green-army-policy/story-fnho52ip-1226674574310#ixzz2dLJCMpxk

Perceptions_now. It would really help if you could be clearer about what your trying to say. Just take a moment to organise your thoughts and then and only then commit to paper. I'm just saying.   

Red Baron

Please explain how any of what you have posted below has anything to do with reducing Australia's CO2 emissions. Honestly, to post that as some sort of answer to the climate change problem really looks like you have absolutely no idea. 

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done?

That is not true. Releasing GHGs in Australia, or ceasing to do so, is no different from doing the same overseas. This argument is no less stupid than the person who insists that he should not put his own rubbish in the bin because it is only a tiny part of the global litter problem.

Green house gases LOL, with every UN greenhouse gas model now lying in tatters and the temperature heading south I think we can safely say that co2 has f#ck all effect on the weather.  ;D

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:44am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 7:39am: they are the ones who don't incessantly complain non stop about getting "their" money (welfare) and spending it on what ever they want... So you think other people should decide what they spend their money on? What's the rationale behind that? To try and stop people spending “welfare” on illicit drugs for starters. Or do you think welfare should be used to break the law? Welfare recipients should be helped to restrict their spending on alcohol, cigarettes and tattoos as well. And gambling. And facial piercings. We should also help fat welfare recipients. None of these are necessities; they are selfish indulgences for people receiving welfare, usually to the detriment of families.

They can (and should) spend it on whatever they wish.

It's not, nor should it be, up to you, me or the Govt.

If they spend it on something 'illegal', or neglect their kids, that's the Law's business, just as it is if you or I do so.

Again, it's not yours.

Or mine.

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

Green house gases LOL, with every UN greenhouse gas model now lying in tatters and the temperature heading south I think we can safely say that co2 has f#ck all effect on the weather.  ;D

Have you been making confetti again?

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

Green house gases LOL, with every UN greenhouse gas model now lying in tatters and the temperature heading south I think we can safely say that co2 has f#ck all effect on the weather.  ;D

What did you drop out of school at 10 or something?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:50pm: Green house gases LOL, with every UN greenhouse gas model now lying in tatters and the temperature heading south I think we can safely say that co2 has f#ck all effect on the weather.  ;D Have you been making confetti again?

No, have you sacrificed a virgin to the climate change Gods again?, I reckon you must have, things have cooled down a little lately  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:07pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:50pm: Green house gases LOL, with every UN greenhouse gas model now lying in tatters and the temperature heading south I think we can safely say that co2 has f#ck all effect on the weather.  ;D Have you been making confetti again? No, have you sacrificed a virgin to the climate change Gods again?, I reckon you must have, things have cooled down a little lately  ;D

So science based estimations are now classed as religion. Where as denial of the science is .... ?

Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:07pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:50pm: Green house gases LOL, with every UN greenhouse gas model now lying in tatters and the temperature heading south I think we can safely say that co2 has f#ck all effect on the weather.  ;D Have you been making confetti again? No, have you sacrificed a virgin to the climate change Gods again?, I reckon you must have, things have cooled down a little lately  ;D

Sounds like something Tony would say.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 7:39am: they are the ones who don't incessantly complain non stop about getting "their" money (welfare) and spending it on what ever they want... So you think other people should decide what they spend their money on? What's the rationale behind that?

since when is it solely 'their' money? If it is a welfare payment - a gift - then any strings the govt puts on it is reasonable.  They don't have to take the money, after all.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 4:38pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? First, it is simply not correct to say that if Australia "ceased all emissions tomorrow it wouldn’t make I iota [sic] of difference to world wide emissions"

Prove it - prove it is not correct.... ::)

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Perceptions_now. It would really help if you could be clearer about what your trying to say. Just take a moment to organise your thoughts and then and only then commit to paper. I'm just saying.

Prozac_now is always like this.  same message, same opaqueness and illogical thinking.

He is not known as pinhead for nothing.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? Well, it is POSSIBLE that OZ could cease all emissions tomorrow? But, on a scale of 1 - Being, we absolutely will cease tomorrow & 1 Trillion (or 1,000,000,000,000) - Being, we absolutely won't cease tomorrow Then, I would suggest that our likely chances of ceasing tomorrow would probably rate around 999,999,999,999.  I would also suggest that it is incorrect to say that OZ ceasing all emissions won't make 1 iota of difference, BUT I would certainly say that,  ON OUR OWN, AUSTRALIA WOULDN'T/WON'T STOP CLIMATE CHANGE or have any substantial effect! Finally, I would suggest, the real question that needs to be asked is - IF AUSTRALIA & THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DON'T ACT SOON & DON'T THROW EVERYTHING AT THE PROBLEM, THEN WHAT WILL BE THE LIKELY EFFECTS, IN OUR LATER YEARS & ON FOLLOWING GENERATIONS? Regrettably, I have an idea of what the likelihood is of Local & Global action & what will flow from that & the answer is not one which you & many others want to hear!

Nice highlights.

But my assertion is still correct.

Abbott's Solution to Climate Change

Abbotts only problem with climate change is political in nature, the number of votes gained by pretending to do something.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 8:40pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? That is not true.

Yes it is, prove me wrong. :)

Kat wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:53am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:44am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 7:39am: they are the ones who don't incessantly complain non stop about getting "their" money (welfare) and spending it on what ever they want... So you think other people should decide what they spend their money on? What's the rationale behind that? To try and stop people spending “welfare” on illicit drugs for starters. Or do you think welfare should be used to break the law? Welfare recipients should be helped to restrict their spending on alcohol, cigarettes and tattoos as well. And gambling. And facial piercings. We should also help fat welfare recipients. None of these are necessities; they are selfish indulgences for people receiving welfare, usually to the detriment of families. They can (and should) spend it on whatever they wish. It's not, nor should it be, up to you, me or the Govt. If they spend it on something 'illegal', or neglect their kids, that's the Law's business, just as it is if you or I do so. Again, it's not yours. Or mine.

Of course they shouldn't spend welfare breaking the law!

Of course it is up to the government.

So you'd rather see kids being abused and mistreated, just so some arsehole can spend their welfare on drugs and alcohol - fantastic.

:( :( :(

FriYAY wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:40pm: FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? That is not true. Yes it is, prove me wrong. :)

Australia emits 1.45% of total world emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
If Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it would make 1.45%a of difference to world wide emissions.

1.45% > 1 iota

You are proven wrong.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 12:15pm: freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:40pm: FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? That is not true. Yes it is, prove me wrong. :) Australia emits 1.45% of total world emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions If Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it would make 1.45%a of difference to world wide emissions. 1.45% > 1 iota You are proven wrong.

I believe the point is that with global emissions rising by several percent each year the value of our 1.45% drop would be eliminated in a matter of months at best.  since 'not one iota' is a literary term and not a mathematical one, his point was quite valid.

In the system of Greek numerals iota has a value of 10.

1.45 is therefore not 1 iota... :D

FriYAY wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 5:35pm: FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? Well, it is POSSIBLE that OZ could cease all emissions tomorrow? But, on a scale of 1 - Being, we absolutely will cease tomorrow & 1 Trillion (or 1,000,000,000,000) - Being, we absolutely won't cease tomorrow Then, I would suggest that our likely chances of ceasing tomorrow would probably rate around 999,999,999,999.  I would also suggest that it is incorrect to say that OZ ceasing all emissions won't make 1 iota of difference, BUT I would certainly say that,  ON OUR OWN, AUSTRALIA WOULDN'T/WON'T STOP CLIMATE CHANGE or have any substantial effect! Finally, I would suggest, the real question that needs to be asked is - IF AUSTRALIA & THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DON'T ACT SOON & DON'T THROW EVERYTHING AT THE PROBLEM, THEN WHAT WILL BE THE LIKELY EFFECTS, IN OUR LATER YEARS & ON FOLLOWING GENERATIONS? Regrettably, I have an idea of what the likelihood is of Local & Global action & what will flow from that & the answer is not one which you & many others want to hear! Nice highlights. But my assertion is still correct.

Why, thank you!

That said, which assertion is correct?
1) That Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow?
Well, yes it could, BUT it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY!

In fact, it is so unlikely that for "all intents & purposes", YOUR ASSERTION IS NOT CORRECT!

2) If OZ did cease all emissions tomorrow, it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions?

WHILST THAT STATEMENT MAY BE TECHNICALLY INCORRECT, it would make no substantive difference, in an overall, Global context, as I have previously agreed.

However, whether your assertions are correct or incorrect, is not really answering the big questions.
I would suggest, the real question that needs to be asked is -
IF AUSTRALIA & THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE, DON'T ACT SOON & DON'T THROW EVERYTHING AT THE PROBLEM, THEN WHAT WILL BE THE LIKELY EFFECTS, IN OUR LATER YEARS & ON FOLLOWING GENERATIONS?

Regrettably, I have an idea of what the likelihood is of Local & Global action & what will flow from that & the answer is not one which you & many others want to hear!

The truth is that in our later years & in future generations, WE WILL ALL PAY DEARLY, IF CONCERTED ACTIONS ARE NOT TAKEN IMMEDIATELY & GLOBALLY!

And, I would suggest, the answer to that conundrum is that Global action/s, will come far too late, if they come at all!

FriYAY,

Sorry to say but you (and longweekend) clearly have a problem with logic (what longweekend, delayed by a few months is not a difference???), as rabbitoh07 has so amply shown and so yes "you are proven wrong". Secondly, as a matter of logic it was you who made the absurd assertion and so it is for you to prove not for me to disprove (God exists, now prove he doesn't - dumb argument - logic 101). So go on get started!!!

But I tell you want. I'll let you off the hook since the main point I was making was that no matter how big or small our contribution to the Global Warming Problem has been (and I believe its very significant since, amongst other things, we have made a very comfortable living exporting coal for many decades) we should not expect the rest of the world to carry us now that the sh!t has hit the fan. I mean, really, that's what a bludger does, truth be told. They're there for the good times but look the other way when its time to pull together and fix our mess. But look, I don't want you to go away from this thinking "man, this whole problem is too big, we can't possibly fix it so lets just carry on business as usual until extinction comes". That's just lazy. The qualified scientists are telling us we still have time to significantly mitigate the extent of global warming, so that's what we should do right; rather then just lay down and die.

Repeat Post, sorry

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 4:47pm:

Hey SI, that's OK, I didn't expect you to have the courage to honestly answer the question.

OK I'll answer your questions. No, I don't believe a man of average weight can walk on water. No, I don't believe a man can be born if his mother is a virgin. No, you can't feed a multitude of people with a handful of loaves of bread and a few fish.

salad in wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:10pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 4:47pm: Hey SI, that's OK, I didn't expect you to have the courage to honestly answer the question.    salad in wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:10pm: OK I'll answer your questions. No, I don't believe a man of average weight can walk on water. He could if he had extrordinarily large feet salad in wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:10pm: No, I don't believe a man can be born if his mother is a virgin. Have you not heard of IVF? [quote author=bill link=1377683186/42#42 date=1377846613] No, you can't feed a multitude of people with a handful of loaves of bread and a few fish.

You could if the fish were whale sharks

It appears that everything you believe is wrong.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 12:44pm: FriYAY wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 12:15pm: freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 8:40pm: FriYAY wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 10:34am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 7:46pm: Did I hear right?  Abbott's solution in the debate to tackle climate change is to set up a 15,000 strong "Green Army" to work on weekends to pick up litter and clear rubbish from creeks and rivers so we can "restore the natural beauty of this great country of ours" (or words to that effect).  Is he serious? That's what Australia's contribution will be to addressing this world disaster that is climate change. A clean up Australia day?        . Considering Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it wouldn’t make I iota of difference to world wide emissions – what to you suggest should/can be done? That is not true. Yes it is, prove me wrong. :) Australia emits 1.45% of total world emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions If Australia could cease all emissions tomorrow and it would make 1.45%a of difference to world wide emissions. 1.45% > 1 iota You are proven wrong. I believe the point is that with global emissions rising by several percent each year the value of our 1.45% drop would be eliminated in a matter of months at best.  since 'not one iota' is a literary term and not a mathematical one, his point was quite valid.

With about 200 countries in the world 1.5% constitutes about 3 X above our share of emissions.

Here is where your argument ultimately leads:

With 200 countries on average producing 0.5% of carbon emissions each the number is so small that everyone is irrelevant and nobody reducing emissions can fix the problem so we are better off to just keep exponentially increasing our output because nobody's individual input has an impact at all ????

ImSpartacus2 - Abbott's solution - at least it will clean up Australia some.

The Climate debate is the biggest bunch of  crap I've ever read.

All the Greenies here angsting about what we can do.

Try starting with your own house, if everyone does that then the contribution will be considerable.

Swagman wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

In the system of Greek numerals iota has a value of 10. 1.45 is therefore not 1 iota... :D

1.45% of world emissions = 399,219,000 tonnes of CO2.

399,219,000 > 10

red baron wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:36pm:

ImSpartacus2 - Abbott's solution - at least it will clean up Australia some. The Climate debate is the biggest bunch of  crap I've ever read. All the Greenies here angsting about what we can do. Try starting with your own house, if everyone does that then the contribution will be considerable.

Carbon pricing is working.

There has been a 9 per cent drop in emissions from electricity generators during the first six months of carbon pricing, a Senate committee has been told.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-11/carbon-tax-emissions-drop/4512782

Only an idiot would scrap it.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:36pm:

Swagman wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:39pm: In the system of Greek numerals iota has a value of 10. 1.45 is therefore not 1 iota... :D 1.45% of world emissions = 399,219,000 tonnes of CO2. 399,219,000 > 10

yeah about a minutes worth in China, big whoopdy doo

haven't seen a catastrophic effect of rampaging co2 on the horizon yet, how are those feedback loops going??? or are they as broken as the climate models??

Rider wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

haven't seen a catastrophic effect of rampaging co2 on the horizon yet, how are those feedback loops going??? or are they as broken as the climate models??

You have.

You simply chose to deny they exist.  You find ignorance comforting about things you don't understand.

You could read this if you want:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=CSIRO_CC_Chapter%201.pdf

But I suppose you will just deny it all anyway.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

Rider wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:57pm: haven't seen a catastrophic effect of rampaging co2 on the horizon yet, how are those feedback loops going??? or are they as broken as the climate models?? You have. You simply chose to deny they exist.  You find ignorance comforting about things you don't understand. You could read this if you want: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=CSIRO_CC_Chapter%201.pdf But I suppose you will just deny it all anyway.

Well of course they would say that  ;D ;D ;D

Gravy train tax payer funded climate alarmist faux scientist produces report to sustain additional tax payer funding therefore furthering the further cyclical studies into a non problem...who would have thought.

Good old Dr Braganza...the man behind whitewashing Catalyst 'info-mercials' along with veterinarian Dr Jonica Newby (partner of Robyn '100m sea level rises' Williams....its a nasty little incestuous world this climate shenanigans isn't it  :)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

You simply chose to deny they exist.  You find ignorance comforting about things you don't understand. You could read this if you want: (they wont let me post a link yet) But I suppose you will just deny it all anyway.

That's right rabbitoh07. They will repeat any lie as long as it takes to avoid doing their share. The ultimate bludgers.

Rider wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 5:36pm: Swagman wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 1:39pm: In the system of Greek numerals iota has a value of 10. 1.45 is therefore not 1 iota... :D 1.45% of world emissions = 399,219,000 tonnes of CO2. 399,219,000 > 10 yeah about a minutes worth in China, big whoopdy doo haven't seen a catastrophic effect of rampaging co2 on the horizon yet, how are those feedback loops going??? or are they as broken as the climate models??

If Abbot started insisting it was OK for him to leave rubbish lying around because it is too much effort to clean up after himself and the result would be barely noticable against the larger rubbish problem, you would think he was selfish far thinking that way and a complete idiot for attempting to justify it wouldn't you?

So why do you think it helps Abbot's position when you attempt to use the same argument for GHG emissions?