If only musicians and poets ruled the world everything would be perfect.

Of course... we'd all be living in poverty but what a small price to pay in order a few may write deep and meaningful songs.... 

I'm surprised Mayall can afford a bowl of brown rice on just US$5M - perhaps he wasn't a very good musician?

John Mayall

If you could avoid the abuse it would improve your posts, although not by much.... 

The men in these clips remind me of those pushing their climate change agenda.They are under a delusion that they are dead right.

Then attack those by cunningly accusing them of conspiracy theories. If you read the good book, you will see this weather was predicted to come

And some very smart people are taking advantage this.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

I'm surprised Mayall can afford a bowl of brown rice on just US$5M - perhaps he wasn't a very good musician?

John Mayall

If you could avoid the abuse it would improve your posts, although not by much.... 

 

---

 That got you doing some healthy research, I knew that you'd be a sucker for that one. I'm worth $3M & I don't class myself as a rich person.

If only fish would bite so enthusiasticly as you do.

On the bright side, at least it momentarily revealed the boredom of your pathetic lonely little life. 

Looking forward to a plethora of unpleasant posts with you in the new year. Very entertaining crossing swords with the village idiot.

86GTS wrote:

---

Santa wrote:

---

Are you suggesting that song writers are able to predict the future?

---

 Not at all, but some of them try their best to make people aware. This ones about 40 years old.

---

 Correct 86, and what a pity gummints at all levels lack the guts to pursue good policy over greed. We will all drown in toxic waste well BEFORE the world temp rises too far. Reading the Roberto Saviano book called Gomorrah is an absolute eyeopener, though he continues to suffer for it, having 24hr police protection and no real life as such. One reviewer even said he's the Salman Rushdie of Italy. It's only after reading Gomorrah that you understand how the world works according to the many journalistic reviews and accolades this ground breaking book received. It was a profound shock.

RickJ wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

 

 

What I think the very smart people (actually I would be more likely to think of them as the very selfish & dangerous people) are taking advantage of is maintaining the anger & emotion which is inherent in disagreement, at the cost of us all.  

 

 

---

 Advice worthy of note;

Don't sell the sun to buy a candle.

---

 Ta, but I think that it is lack of agreement on who those selfish & dangerous people are which enables them to get away with it, & they are very masterful in manipulating & maintaining that lack of agreement. 

RickJ wrote:

---

those whose sole purpose is to destroy our country by inflicting a financial and personal penalty on us all due to a misguided support for false belief 

 

That doesn't sound right. How can those who's sole purpose is to destroy also have misguided support for an alleged false belief? Either a sole purpose to destroy is intended, or it is is 'accidental because it is misguided. ;)

Anyway I think it very clear that we are not in agreement as to who the selfish & dangerous manipulators are or what their motivation might be. 

A direct result of the manipulation of the climate debate as I see it means that to say more requires anyone doing so to make reference to the different sides of politics. This has been a very successful & deliberate move to create & maintain a polarised division. Aligning differing views on climate change (& a range of other topics) with one side of politics or another when in reality the topics have no political affiliation has been a very clever way of ensuring lack of agreement & promoting resistance to change.  

Because of this, to engage in further discussion is sadly not possible without divisive & polarising political argument. It angers me that this is so, & I have no doubt that this has been a deliberate strategy of the manipulators who's interests are not the interests of the greater population. 

 

 

RickJ wrote:

---

The question still remains.

Is there anyone that is prepared to contribute a feasible explanation with proven projections on how all average Aussies will cope with the new lifestyle if we consider the question immediately below.

If Australians close all coal fired power stations in the next ten years and remove all ICE vehicles within the same period while at the same time increase the cost of what will be an unreliable power supply at best by 30 to 40 percent conservatively then how will we survive?

 

Nice try. :) 

Can you explain how a projection can be a proven one?

Besides it's a loaded question which presupposes agreement with your assertion that non coal fired power supplies will be 'unreliable  at best'. 

I don't think for a moment that this scenario will occur or that anyone will be stupid or reckless enough to fully transition from one power source to another until the new power source is proven capable.

At present we are in the midst of transition. We know we need to transition, but we are on a path. It's a path none of us has trodden before so the walking will be cautious. Some of us will be more cautious than others. Some of us will wish we could move faster. There will be many anomalies along the way , but as a friend of mine said recently, one morning we will wake up & find ourselves there.  There will be varying amounts of uncertainty until then, but the doomsayers are those who cannot see beyond the 'weirdness' of the present. And so we hear stories of things like fossil fuel generation of power to charge electric cars (as an example) used as criticism of the change. Something taken out of context that is indeed crazy, but seen in the context of transition is just a 'symptom' of transition from old to new. A temporary situation. No-one could seriously expect that the transition would be instantaneous. 

Your question about 'how we will survive' shows concern for us all, but I think it misplaced. It wont be lack of coal fired power which threatens our demise, it is fossil fuel reliance which represents a significant threat to our future.  I understand that you don't think that  - and presumably like others believe that the current fast paced climate change is a hoax, or just a 'normal pattern'.  Oh that that were so, but with the worldwide scientific consensus saying otherwise, to accept that our future is not in jeopardy, & refute the science is a far bigger risk as I & many others see it. 

I expect we are back to having to agree to disagree?  

 

 

---

Plain Truth wrote:

---

 "If you read the good book, you will see this weather was predicted to come"

Sadly "the good book" take your pick as to which one,  is the root cause of most of the worlds pain and suffering.

Current wars include the IsraeliPalestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious elements are overtly present, but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism.

A Google search will uncover countless wars throughout history, each side believing theirs was the righteous path.

Cuppa wrote:

---

 Well I can answer Rick. 

First up your assertion that our power supply doesn't need fixing is probably our biggest point of not agreeing. I don't think there would be anyone on the planet who accepts the science which says that we are looking at an accelerated climate change resulting primarily from man's reliance on fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution, & which has increased exponentially in our lifetimes who would agree that we don't need to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels ASAP. 

Now the car analogy. There is a significant factor missing from the analogy. Without that significant factor I would be unable to disagree with your conclusions as a car owner. However if you add into the analogy that failure to get the work done on the car would be likely to result in the premature death of my family, I would take the need to get that work done more seriously. However as you suggest I'm not silly, so I would undertake due diligence to check up on what I was being told. I wouldn't simply accept what a fellow off the street (or forum) was telling me  & I wouldn't just start asking around to see what other's opinions were, knowing full well that most people would have opinions, but none that I could be certain were well founded. Instead, I would seek expert opinion. Much like looking to the scientific cncensus about climate change & it's causes. 

The part about whether the experience of other countries proves anything, is asking for something that cannot be provided. It is too soon to tell. What exactly would you expect in a period of transition. We are all trying our best, some things work better than others, some work well others not so well. It sounds like you expect certainty in times of uncertainty. But from my perspective the consequences of not trying to do the best we can do are unthinkable, & the consequences of doing all we can and it costing us a lot of money won't mean a thing if we pass a tipping point where life is no longer possible or bearable. 

Of course if you are able to simply disbelieve the experts either by rubbishing what they say,or by rubbishing the experts themselves by claiming some sort of worldwide conspiracy which has seen them all bought off simply as a money making hoax by a select few, then I can understand why you couldn't agree with any changes being tried to mitigate climate change.   

So who's opinion is likely to be right - - the fellows on the street or the car experts.  Do we live by gut feeling alone, or do we accept that that there are specialists who know more than us? Do we accept specialist advice,  maybe with a second or third opinion, or do we go with what the fellow on the street, or our mates reckon. 

Or do we seek out folk who claim to be experts just because they say what we want to hear. 

 

 

 

-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 2nd of January 2023 07:42:23 PM

---

You fail to answer a simple example because you choose to twist it to suit yourself

No one rubbished anyone.

I like a good debate, even if I come to realize Im wrong.

How else do we learn anything?

But the quickest way to turn a healthy debate into an unhealthy debacle is to have it with someone who will twist  words around until they mean something else.Then it is argued on that point, completely ignoring what was really said.

It is not a debate when one side is both participant and adjudicator.

I have noted your form.

On paper I have never seen a person as perfect as you. 

We are so fortunate to have your contribution.

I will leave this poor excuse for a debate right here.

I wont be provoked into saying something that I may regret.

Oh come on, there has been no 'twisting' 

 It was your suggestion in an earlier post that scientists wouldn't mention some things because they wouldn't get paid, in the same post you suggested that Greta Thunberg was a 'paid actress'. 

You wrote the following - your bolding. "Explain the recorded Ice Ages and the warming of the globe from each of those events. We dont mention the cooling of the earth that the planet experienced between the two Ice Age Periods. The reason this is not mentioned is because it is not within a *Climate Scientists* agenda. The scientist would not get paid if he/she were to report this part of the global temperature phenomenon that has existed for tens of thousands of years.  

I'm sure there are some scientists open to 'saying what is wanted' by those who fund the research, but any suggestion that a consensus of scientists from right around the globe can have their findings subverted in such a way is drawing a very long bow. 

'Rubbish' may have been a clumsy word to use but nothing has been 'twisted'. What you wrote earlier is there to see. 

I did perceive that your views were coming from the side of the debate which regularly resorts to attacking 'the other side' when their attempts to support their claims fall down. 

There was & is no need to personalise this. Until that happened I thought we were going pretty well. 

I'm sorry if you think my failure to agree with what you think was in any way an attempt to provoke you to saying anything you might regret, and Im glad that you haven't. 

I'm not here to change your views & I hope you accept that you aren't likely to change mine.

The purpose of such debate on a public forum like this, at least as I see it is to provide the 'audience' who reads it an opportunity to consider their own views based on the exchange of views of others. 

RickJ wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

 Well I can answer Rick. 

First up your assertion that our power supply doesn't need fixing is probably our biggest point of not agreeing. I don't think there would be anyone on the planet who accepts the science which says that we are looking at an accelerated climate change resulting primarily from man's reliance on fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution, & which has increased exponentially in our lifetimes who would agree that we don't need to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels ASAP. 

Now the car analogy. There is a significant factor missing from the analogy. Without that significant factor I would be unable to disagree with your conclusions as a car owner. However if you add into the analogy that failure to get the work done on the car would be likely to result in the premature death of my family, I would take the need to get that work done more seriously. However as you suggest I'm not silly, so I would undertake due diligence to check up on what I was being told. I wouldn't simply accept what a fellow off the street (or forum) was telling me  & I wouldn't just start asking around to see what other's opinions were, knowing full well that most people would have opinions, but none that I could be certain were well founded. Instead, I would seek expert opinion. Much like looking to the scientific cncensus about climate change & it's causes. 

The part about whether the experience of other countries proves anything, is asking for something that cannot be provided. It is too soon to tell. What exactly would you expect in a period of transition. We are all trying our best, some things work better than others, some work well others not so well. It sounds like you expect certainty in times of uncertainty. But from my perspective the consequences of not trying to do the best we can do are unthinkable, & the consequences of doing all we can and it costing us a lot of money won't mean a thing if we pass a tipping point where life is no longer possible or bearable. 

Of course if you are able to simply disbelieve the experts either by rubbishing what they say,or by rubbishing the experts themselves by claiming some sort of worldwide conspiracy which has seen them all bought off simply as a money making hoax by a select few, then I can understand why you couldn't agree with any changes being tried to mitigate climate change.   

So who's opinion is likely to be right - - the fellows on the street or the car experts.  Do we live by gut feeling alone, or do we accept that that there are specialists who know more than us? Do we accept specialist advice,  maybe with a second or third opinion, or do we go with what the fellow on the street, or our mates reckon. 

Or do we seek out folk who claim to be experts just because they say what we want to hear. 

 

 

 

-- Edited by Cuppa on Monday 2nd of January 2023 07:42:23 PM

---

 

You fail to answer a simple example because you choose to twist it to suit yourself

No one rubbished anyone.

I like a good debate, even if I come to realize Im wrong.

How else do we learn anything?

But the quickest way to turn a healthy debate into an unhealthy debacle is to have it with someone who will twist  words around until they mean something else.Then it is argued on that point, completely ignoring what was really said.

It is not a debate when one side is both participant and adjudicator.

I have noted your form.

On paper I have never seen a person as perfect as you. 

We are so fortunate to have your contribution.

I will leave this poor excuse for a debate right here.

I wont be provoked into saying something that I may regret.

 

 

 

---

 Hi Rick,

Well done for bailing out of this discussion.

I was watching it before teatime tonight and unfortunately it was taking the course of other *debates* that we have seen.

It is all about provoking and you were wise to see it for what it it was.

I have asked what I considered to be reasonable questions and have made reasonable statements in posts which have either been ignored and spoken over the top of or twisted what was said to avoid a reasonable reply to the quote.

Some people can talk under water with a mouth full of marbles. Just check the reply post when you mentioned not going any further.

The first three words are issued as a challenge. Even after you said you werent continuing and offered valid reasoning the reply was an obvious provocation.

You are correct when you describe the perfection we have all come to witness. No one is that good, are they?

If I remember correctly Rob D was challenged to a debate but that didnt go to Robs plan at all.
There was more twisting on that night than at Chubby Checkers disco.

I bet your sister will have a field day with her analysis of a few posts on here over the last couple of days. NPD comes to mind

On a side note, thank you for your help the other day. I know you had to get away as soon as I got home, so thanks Rick for what you did for me.

I wont get down this week at all as I have tests.

Take it easy Rick,

In the 1930s, scientists reported links between smoking and adverse health outcomes, albeit the links were established through experiments and examinations of animals.

Twenty years later, in 1949, two UK doctors began looking at 649 cases of death caused by lung cancer of which 647 persons had been smokers and 2 persons were non-smokers.

The doctors extended their research and collected data from over 5,000 doctors and hospitals.

Five years later, in 1954, the two UK doctors published a report in which they asserted that there was incontrovertible evidence that smoking caused lung cancer.

(As an aside, 50 years later, in 2004, the British Medical Journal reprinted the report in commemoration its significance.)

Ten years later, in 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General published a report outlining the U.S. government's official position that smoking was a health hazard.

One year later, in 1965, a survey among U.S. medical doctors revealed that only 35% believed that smoking caused lung cancer.

Ninety years on from the initial adverse findings, what do we now 'believe' about smoking?

And yet, it is reported that, currently, 11% of Australian adults smoke daily. That figure can reasonably be described as a small minority but, actually, it constitutes almost 2 million people. 

Australia - 2022 - two million non-believers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42iVdKtYh7U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR4HjTH_fTM