Transport Supply Chain

You guys should be down here on the south coast in the middle of these fires. Who's to blame? The Government, the Greenies, the National Parks, the Forestry, the Council, even the firies who haven't stopped for weeks on end. The Army even get a mention. And of course Global Warming.

Where is the middle ground in all of that. Pointing the finger does nothing to stop the flames. Yes with the exception of the Firies and the Army, I can probably agree that all the rest can be blended into being the culprits in different amounts of culpability, but now is not the time to even discuss it.

My personal theory on warming.... The world has been getting warmer since the last ice age, otherwise we would all be out trying to harness wooley mammoths to pull our freight around.

Indisputable fact is that China and India have till 2050 before they need to even think about emissions reduction......the dummies here ,schools especially ,are being brainwashed into believing Australia can actually reverse climate change by returning to the stone age......And if that looks like winnning the next election ,then I guarantee politicians will promise just that....What worries me is these idiots are going to turn this country into something that makes the 1930s depression look like a picnic.

JOHN.K. wrote: Indisputable fact is that China and India have till 2050 before they need to even think about emissions reduction......the dummies here ,schools especially ,are being brainwashed into believing Australia can actually reverse climate change by returning to the stone age......And if that looks like winnning the next election ,then I guarantee politicians will promise just that....What worries me is these idiots are going to turn this country into something that makes the 1930s depression look like a picnic.

Yep. What’s China doing - Building coal power stations. At current complication rates one new coal powered station comes on line each two and a bit weeks... and they expect that will be the rate for the next ten years with current orders. Even if you believe in the global warming cult yer gotta wonder what will Australia prove by closing a dozen or so coal power stations ?



.

wee-allis wrote: You guys should be down here on the south coast in the middle of these fires. Who's to blame? The Government, the Greenies, the National Parks, the Forestry, the Council, even the firies who haven't stopped for weeks on end. The Army even get a mention. And of course Global Warming.

Where is the middle ground in all of that. Pointing the finger does nothing to stop the flames. Yes with the exception of the Firies and the Army, I can probably agree that all the rest can be blended into being the culprits in different amounts of culpability, but now is not the time to even discuss it.

My personal theory on warming.... The world has been getting warmer since the last ice age, otherwise we would all be out trying to harness wooley mammoths to pull our freight around.

Probably a whole new thread there..




.

Lang wrote: ...very difficult to get the right answers. I think it is very funny when people with a particular point of view completely dismiss any opposing research and totally embrace any supporting research. My scientists are better than your scientists. It makes most "discussions" a nonsense.

I still stick to my theory that the answer to most problems, be it climate, social or economic change, lays somewhere in the middle. That is why we have such a good country - we have always had a central leaning government be it Liberal or Labor and a central leaning population. The extremes of right wing fascism or left wing communism be they parliamentary or dictatorships have never got a foot hold here and hopefully never will.

The forces controlling the climate debate are pretty balanced. The greenies are extremely vocal and influence many while the people producing the problem are very quiet but very powerful. My bet is the end result will be social pressure will redirect the producers to slowly and sensibly modify their behaviour...

Lang

Lang, regarding anything climate, I would suggest you do not take the ‘word’ of any scientist at face value though have a look-see at the claims yourself - as I do. How goes your soy research fact checking ? ...I’ve barely started on the nonsense claims in the thread starting post ‘research’..

One wonders how we arrived at todays Climate Cult hysteria? ...why them cultists have even got a sixteen year old girl prophet..:blink:

Perhaps a look back in time...
via the book, “Confronting the Future, Australia and the next hundred years” Professor Charles Birch, published 1974. All about environment and population amongst other things and how we MUST change our ways NOW or we are all doomed to a hot future.

Via page 41: “...Until we have harnessed the energy of the sun we use other sources of energy all of which have problems, particularly of pollution. We cannot recycle energy since it is all eventually converted into waste heat. When this causes the environment to heat up we call this thermal pollution. Since thermal pollution can have a serious effect on living organisms there is a heat ceiling beyond which it is unsafe to heat the earth any more. This puts an upper ceiling to the use of energy on this planet...”

The above quote were written before the planet heating ‘reason’ became CO2 and were not thermal caused. Though reading that you get the idea that the climate cult had started well before CO2 became the mainstream cause. (CO2 possible effects first noted over 100 years ago) Seems the main message is that we will all suffer a terrible and very hot future unless we change our ways and pray and pay tributes to the climate and environmental Gods - seems all religions have the punishment of a hot future in store for sinners and deniers..:lol:


Lang, as to meeting half way with believers of a cult - ...perhaps we should have given in and let them have everything north of the Brisbane Line. That would of kept them happy and our troubles would have been over and we could all live happy ever after.....



.

I notice the ABC and the greens are now claiming "Climate catastrophe",and howling down anyone with a contrary opinion,or who doest buy the green hype.....According to the greens ,you are a criminal if you dont agree with them.......and when they get in power they will lock you up in a concentration camp......sound familiar?

Look st the bright side of things with the Greens, their fearless leader pulled the pin today and now I wonder why he did. Only time will tell once the blood hounds in the Press do some digging

Blood hounds in the press do some digging? Into the greens or Labor? Try pulling the other one.

Lang wrote: Paul

You might be interested in this.

FAO of UN. Committee made up of Ag people from each country, not environmentalists or academics. A heavy read but maybe worth it if you are interested in the subject.

www.fao.org/3/i3461e/i3461e.pdf

lang

I’ve finally read through the entire thing..:huh: What a load of greeny activist nonsense...:sick:

Picking the part of the ‘research’ report that relates to Oz cattle trucking...

Apparently going off the UN report cattle produce methane and removing them from Australia will reduce methane...........

O.K., all cattle gone, then what...?..........:huh: .....lots of uneaten grass growing.............. suppose the termites will be well fed........................................... The UN report does not offer any ‘illumination’...





.

Lantana

I put that up solely as a pro-transport article to show how little trucks contribute to the entire chain as they are always blamed as big polluters. When you see the very small transport component it makes trucks efficient .

It was not a green statement. Unfortunately people jumped on it for some unknown reason as an attack on trucking and then it deteriorated into a sneering post fest much like the electric car debate. I think we can do without that attitude either right ,left, green or opposite.

There has got to be some middle ground. I suppose the bloke who decided to build sewers was abused for waste of public monies by those who reckoned throwing their chamber pots into gutters in the street each morning was perfectly acceptable. There is a lack of reasoned rational argument on both sides with one storming the walls and the other defending them to the death.

Technology and change have always been resisted and we see historical wasteful flights of fancy are doomed to failure but genuinely useful advances have taken their place in society. Slow as in medical or agricultural developments or fast as in motoring and aviation, change is inevitable. If it does not work it will not be accepted in the long run.

Any change must stand on its own feet. There are ALWAYS positives and negatives to change and for it to last the balance sheet must eventually finish in the black. So many times in history change has been accompanied by a red balance sheet for long periods until either the improved physical results became evident or social benefits became obvious to the general population.

Governments can say or do what they want in the short term (which might be decades) but eventually if they do not improve the peoples' choice and give a decent standard of living any dreamtime or self-interest decisions will eventually fail.

Life is not perfect. NOBODY has all the answers. Men of goodwill accept that even the most bitter opponent occasionally has an idea better than theirs. Change for the better, right from the cave-man, has come about by constant experimenting with social structure and technology and balance between those with unlimited vision who want to sail into the storm and those who do not want to ever untie from the dock. Eventually the ship waits for better weather and sails. The adventurer is annoyed by the delay, the fearful are still fearful but the man who wins out is the one who listened to both arguments and steadied the ship.

Everybody has something to offer.

Lang