Global Warming

[Merveille]

Borrowed from Bolt's blog, this says a lot about the arrogance of many warmists. (Remember, this is about the quotes, not about Andrew Bolt. Please attack the issue, not the messenger - i.e - don't be predictable)


Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly sighs for the virtue of a communist dictatorship, which, unike Australia, needs not pander to the 80 per cent of the population which has an IQ of just 80 and resists virtuous causes such as global warming:

Whether non-democracies such as China will negotiate the rapids of the coming century more adroitly remains to be seen. Certainly, freed from any need to pander to the 80/80 rule, they have at least one freedom Western-style democracies do not have – the freedom to act decisively.

Farrelly of course imagines herself in the 20 per cent of the intellectual elite, and thus born to dictate.

Farrelly joins other warmists in regretting the freedom of other citizens to disagree with them.

Here’s former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton:

(T)he implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Here’s Emeritus Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor and honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia:

Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.

 

[lamb22]

Borrowed from Bolt's blog, this says a lot about the arrogance of many warmists. (Remember, this is about the quotes, not about Andrew Bolt. Please attack the issue, not the messenger - i.e - don't be predictable)


Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly sighs for the virtue of a communist dictatorship, which, unike Australia, needs not pander to the 80 per cent of the population which has an IQ of just 80 and resists virtuous causes such as global warming:

Whether non-democracies such as China will negotiate the rapids of the coming century more adroitly remains to be seen. Certainly, freed from any need to pander to the 80/80 rule, they have at least one freedom Western-style democracies do not have – the freedom to act decisively.

Farrelly of course imagines herself in the 20 per cent of the intellectual elite, and thus born to dictate.

Farrelly joins other warmists in regretting the freedom of other citizens to disagree with them.

Here’s former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton:

(T)he implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Here’s Emeritus Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor and honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia:

Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.

I can sympathise with your trepidation Merveille.

 

[Rosy]

Borrowed from Bolt's blog,

Can you edit your post to include the link/s please. That is not only for reasons of legality and courtesy but it also gives people the opportunity to read the comments in context.

 

[evo]

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly sighs for the virtue of a communist dictatorship, which, unike Australia, needs not pander to the 80 per cent of the population which has an IQ of just 80 and resists virtuous causes such as global warming:

I'm guessing this women doesn't have much familiarity with Bell Curves and IQ tests.

 

[Merveille]

Can you edit your post to include the link/s please. That is not only for reasons of legality and courtesy but it also gives people the opportunity to read the comments in context.

Out of courtesy then. Legality is a bit of a stretch, fair shake of the sauce bottle

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm guessing this women doesn't have much familiarity with Bell Curves and IQ tests.

Beat me to it.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Borrowed from Bolt's blog, this says a lot about the arrogance of many warmists. (Remember, this is about the quotes, not about Andrew Bolt. Please attack the issue, not the messenger - i.e - don't be predictable)


Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly sighs for the virtue of a communist dictatorship, which, unike Australia, needs not pander to the 80 per cent of the population which has an IQ of just 80 and resists virtuous causes such as global warming:

Whether non-democracies such as China will negotiate the rapids of the coming century more adroitly remains to be seen. Certainly, freed from any need to pander to the 80/80 rule, they have at least one freedom Western-style democracies do not have – the freedom to act decisively.

Farrelly of course imagines herself in the 20 per cent of the intellectual elite, and thus born to dictate.

Farrelly joins other warmists in regretting the freedom of other citizens to disagree with them.

Here’s former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton:

(T)he implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Here’s Emeritus Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor and honorary secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia:

Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.

Warmist :hihi.

By the tone, I assume you don't think warming is occurring?

Sad really, because the data is widely available.

Blatant lack of fact checking aside (80/80 rule??? : I am not sure what your (or Bolt's) quote mining is supposed to imply. That some people have crazy ideas? That's nothing new. When you consider why these quotes were proffered (and I would prefer to see them in context), it isn't surprising that some people have this point of view. In the same way that some people refuse to see the unusual warming trend of the last 50 years, when the data is freely available.

 

[lamb22]

The Farelly article by way of background.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/democracy-is-blocking-intelligence-20110420-1dos3.html

 

[evo]

I am not sure what your (or Bolt's) quote mining is supposed to imply. That some people have crazy ideas? That's nothing new. When you consider why these quotes were proffered (and I would prefer to see them in context), it isn't surprising that some people have this point of view.

to be fair to Merville and Bolt, Clive Hamilton is an absolute douche. Apart from being a Greens candidate he's actually one of the most outspoken and sought after 'dial-an-opinion' academics in Australia.

he has also written a number of highly influential 'green' papers. One famously cited in parliament. It's fair enough to cite him as a representative of the green lobby, in my view.

 

[mld]

I'd be interested in how Ms Farrelly plans for her meritocracy to be implemented. Can't imagine it passing referendum. Perhaps GetUp can get involved.

 

[Brodders17]

I'm guessing this women doesn't have much familiarity with Bell Curves and IQ tests.

'this women' doesnt actually say 80% of the population has an IQ under 80. she says it is an advertising assumption. bolt then uses that line. perhaps it is 'this men' that doesnt understand.

whilst not agreeing with her idea re voting, her premise that politics panders to the masses rather than to good policy is right.

 

[mld]

whilst not agreeing with her idea re voting, her premise that politics panders to the masses rather than to good policy is right.

I don't know, I reckon the current result of a minority government indicates the punters don't care much for the so-called pandering to the masses. If pandering is supposed to work, both sides must be doing it wrong.

 

[tigersnake]

What is obscene about their profits? What do you think happens to those profits? Real wealth generation benefits us all. Those companies won't foot the bill, it will be the consumer.

They use coal and oil/gas for power because if they didn't their competitors surely would and they would be out of business. Now if you want them to change their ways, you have to change what their customers want. If people were prepared to pay for more expensive alternatives that are apparently cleaner than they would. The problem is no alternative exists that can provide base-load power other than nuclear power. Not many people seem keen to go there. Now what you are suggesting will both drive energy prices (hence everything) artificially up. Consequently output will decrease as will our wealth. If you think the government should take action regardless of what people want, then prepare to lose an election. That's why the government is trying to fool voters into thinking they will be no worse off or even better off by re-distributing wealth through the tax system. Hence people the goverment deems as rich will pay. The problem is that the carbon tax will increase as the wealth of the so called rich decreases. Eventually the people the government doesn't consider rich will have to pay. Either way this government is setting itself up for a burn.

The problem with solar is that it is a very inefficient and expensive form of energy. It doesn't matter if we have the real-estate for it, the cost of implementing solar power is enormous. Germany leads the way, well perhaps you are ignorant of the real price of energy in Germany. National pride is no use if it leads to ruin.

A lot of strange and woolly conspiratorial assertions in there which aren't worth untangling and commenting on, but lets look at the assertion that solar power is expensive and burning hydrocarbons is not. First it illustrates the fact its pointless having a discussion with you. I've made the point repeatedly about externalities, you choose to completely ignore it. Currently burning fossil fuels to produce energy is cheap because it externalises the cost of air pollution. Solar energy does not. Charge people to pollute the air and suddenly energy that is currently deemed alternative is mainstream. That Mr G, is the whole point of the exercise. Fossil fuel industries aren't necessarily dead, they just have to clean up their act to survive in the long term, (something I personally beleive will happen with a carbon price). Employment booms in alternative energy, clean fossil fuel R&D, the sky does not fall, whole new industries blossom. I'm constantly amazed by the doomsdayers on this.

By the way, don't beleive the hype about base load requirements. Its a complex issue, but in a nutshell, baseload power is well and truly possible, many argue right now with a carbon price, but definately in the not too distant future.

 

[Rosy]

Legality is a bit of a stretch, fair shake of the sauce bottle

It's my advice from the Intellectual Property and Copyright layers I've met with that it is indeed a legal requirement to link to a source when using someone else's material on the net.

 

[mld]

Fossil fuel industries aren't necessarily dead, they just have to clean up their act to survive in the long term, (something I personally beleive will happen with a carbon price). Employment booms in alternative energy, clean fossil fuel R&D, the sky does not fall, whole new industries blossom. I'm constantly amazed by the doomsdayers on this.

Of course, this ignores the fact that energy will cost more, which will effectively lead to a reduction in productivity. Not doomsaying, not saying we shouldn't do it, but it is important to be honest and recognise that it isn't just a case of tilting the scales in favour of greener forms of energy, increasing the cost of energy will have an impact. More money mopped up in covering the costs of energy means less money in the economy.

 

[tigersnake]

Of course, this ignores the fact that energy will cost more, which will effectively lead to a reduction in productivity. Not doomsaying, not saying we shouldn't do it, but it is important to be honest and recognise that it isn't just a case of tilting the scales in favour of greener forms of energy, increasing the cost of energy will have an impact. More money mopped up in covering the costs of energy means less money in the economy.

But making power more expensive is the whole point, I don't ignore the fact, just don't mention it in this particular point. At the moment because polluting is free, the price does not include the cost of pollution. Short term money will go back to consumers as a transition measure, longer term people will be more efficient with their power use, and own more efficient appliances.

The glaring obvious thing that no pollitician wants to mention, because it would be seen as lecturing the electorate which is electoral suicide, is that currently people waste a lot of power, because its too cheap. If power goes up by 20%, the majority of people will just use 20% less power (and bank the transition cheque). ie. people will switch stuff off when not in use, turn the air con to cool rather than freeze etc etc.

 

[mld]

At least someone admits removing money from the economy will dampen the economy.

 

[tigersnake]

Where do I say that? No money will be removed, you think it will go into a government top hat and dissappear? Redirected, recirculated call it whatever you want, but no money will be 'taken out'. Fair dinkum, thats just silly. I've said like a stuck record, the economy will be significantly stimulated. As I've said, to think otherwise is to think like a blacksmith or a horsebreaker when the model T took off. But you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

 

[mld]

Where do I say that? No money will be removed, you think it will go into a government top hat and dissappear? Redirected, recirculated call it whatever you want, but no money will be 'taken out'. Fair dinkum, thats just silly. I've said like a stuck record, the economy will be significantly stimulated. As I've said, to think otherwise is to think like a blacksmith or a horsebreaker when the model T took off. But you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

Ah okay, name calling, nice.

Obviously when energy costs more, it means more money is being taken out of the economy to service energy costs, money that was originally being directed elsewhere. Increased percentage of money spent on procuring energy means decreased money available to spend on other things.

 

[evo]

Where do I say that? No money will be removed, you think it will go into a government top hat and dissappear? Redirected, recirculated call it whatever you want, but no money will be 'taken out'. Fair dinkum, thats just silly. I've said like a stuck record, the economy will be significantly stimulated. As I've said, to think otherwise is to think like a blacksmith or a horsebreaker when the model T took off. But you'll keep seeing what you want to see.

I see. So if we made the tax bigger the economy would be even more stimulated, right?

It's like a magic pudding!