octave

That is the definition of Conservative. To conserve the things as they are unless there is a persuasive argument for change.

When I was twenty my life worked pretty well but I am glad that I have gradually change the way I live my life. To get up every day and do the same thing is boring and unimaginative just because it worke in the past. If you do not try new things how do you know what you are doing is the best you can do?

The conservative view in the early days of the car was to yell at drivers - “Get a Horse!” greeted almost every automobile which appeared on the roads" Car History - Get a Horse! (Part 1: Early Skepticism)

What was the conservative veiw of woman being allowed to vote?

For many years conservatives told us that same sex marriage would be the end of society yet in 2017 it was finally allowed, is it a disaster for society, doenst look like it.

Early conservative attitudes to the aeroplane were not particularly positive. Being progressive means usually being vindicated by history whereas the passage of time usually makes coservatives look unenlighten and sometimes foolish.

Now only the crims have them, (other's have to hide their's away from the world), also the boys in Blue have them , ( so don't argue with the police )

"There are now more than 1 million registered guns in NSW, and 90,000 have been registered in the past two years alone, according to NSW Firearms Registry data released under freedom of information laws."

Sorry but I disagree, your statement is obviously incorrect which must be a little embarrasing for you.

Other than that you seem to suggest that we are negetaviely impacted because there are too few legal gun owners compared to criminals who possess guns. Which country would you prefer us to be like perhaps the US?

"You do undertstsnd that the budget is in deficit dont you????? This means it spends more than it gets."NOT according to Sco mo !.

 

Labor made ALL that dept, AND his government has made a surplus.

 

HE , doesn't lie. does he.

 

spacesailor

"The 2018 budget forecast a deficit of $18.2 billion. ... The 2017 budget forecast government spending to be in surplus in the 2020/21 fiscal year, while the 2018 budget forecast a surplus of $2.2 billion in2019/20. The government's debt level is forecast to be $629 billion in 2019/20."

Scott Morrison finally acknowledges budget remains in deficit as voters go to the polls

But we are not in surplus are we?

And if/when we are you do understand that surplus means you earn more than your operating expenses and after sevicing your debt interest you have some left over. You can have a surplus but still be in debt.

Space is there anything that you are not unhappy with?

WISH LISTA pension from the amount of the collected gst . ( it must be More than what the government lets go into the Pension)

 

If the government "don't get it" Who does ?.

 

spacesailor

The government spends what it gets in tax revinue and often more. You do undertstsnd that the budget is in deficit dont you????? This means it spends more than it gets.

"Producers gouge the system by agreement and don't try to keep prices down".AND the government wants it that way, as every dollar spent puts 10 cents in it's coffers !.

 

The more your power cost you, the more the government gets in GST.

 

spacesailor

True but of course gst is not kept by the government but used to pay for things like your pension and health care.

Octave you have forced me to re-read all my posts to see if I used the term conspiracy. I didn’t and don’t believe there is a conspiracy. The closest I came was to say computer modellers are scamming us- I could go into great detail about why I believe this. The alarmists are just doing what they think is best for everyone, but this gives themselves permission to overstate the case. I am sitting in a theatre right now in a presentation on the Epiroc electric mine truck. Technology like this will do more than all the Bob Browns for our environment.

The climate models are not the sole evidence. I think it was Arrehenius in the 1890s that proposed that the earth climate warmed by increasing the amount of CO2. It is only since 1960 that climate modelling has had any input into the debate. Getting rid of the models does not invalidate the physics.

but this gives themselves permission to overstate the case.

Just to be clear are you saying there is a case but it is being overstated?

I am not suggesting you have use the word conspiracy however my take is that it is implied.

"The world expert on the Maldives is Niklas Nils-Axel Morner:

He wrote the official report on sea level (which was unsurprisingly

suppressed):"

You posted a link to something called Climate Change and political Pollution, here is the last paragraph:

"Don’t be fooled: we can’t control the weather nor are we doomed to apocalyptic destruction. The data contradict the propaganda: no quick melting of the ice caps, no worrisome increase in sea level or hurricanes, no tales of terror. We are facing an aggressive political agenda, based on a totalitarian, Malthusian and pagan ideology, promoted by a powerful and noisy minority, in which the apocalyptic threat is nothing more than an effective instrument to manipulate public opinion. Science has been hijacked and polluted by politics. Our planet is not in danger, but our freedom most certainly is.

You also said this: #56 "You ask for sea level, temperature and ice loss data rather than opinion. I have posted links before to explanations of how the data has been manipulated and misrepresented.

#160 NASA is a victim of the funding trap and the need to maintain public support. There are plenty of credible studies that refute NASA interpretations of the data, but they are almost impossible to get published or peer reviewed. Also reputable popular science journals like New Scientist, for example, refuse to publish material that goes against the alarmist doctrine. Make no mistake, this is public hysteria on the scale of the Salem witch hunts. It isn't evil, just misguided.

We could argue about what constitutes a conspiracy but some of the above would seem to lean that way.

Whilst you may not doubt the actual satellite readings or temperature records some do. They misrepresent data harmonization without understanding how or why it is done and they ignore the fact that many reading harmonizations are in fact down rather than up. They suggest that scientist are biased in order to make money however they rarely apply the same scepticism to perhaps a geologist who may have work or wish to work for the companies that employ geologists.

A mining vehicle that runs on renewables getting near pure carbon out of the ground more efficiently for BURNING is a great leap forward?

I agree but sometimes you have to take any bit of "progress" you can. What I would hope for is that these vehicles will perform so well that other industries might follow. Many new technologies have to overcome resistance to change and scepticism. It is not much a leap forward but at this stage, I will celebrate any small change.

I wish you could all see the presentations on drones, robots, autonomous vehicles etc. mines are gearing up to run on electric loaders and trucks powered by renewables.

Yes, it is interesting as an avid follower of new technology I am quite aware of this.

World's Biggest Battery to Boost Solar in Texas Oil Country

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Caterpillar talks up its new ultra-class electric drive mining trucks - International Mining

This is actually one of the reasons I lean towards optimism. We already see building renewable is the cheaper option. We, of course, need some of this to be base load and storage is becoming much cheaper. The price point at which it becomes a no brainer is close. Most new technologies do require a helping hand in their early days. Governments built highways and other infrastructure to facilitate the wider usage of the car. The cost of building a new airport is not only bourne by the travelling public.

It is difficult to find a CEO of a mining company or petrochemical company that does not at least publicly accept the evidence for anthropomorphic climate change.

Climate Change - Woodside Energy

There are new opportunities if we are clever and forward-looking. New technologies are not built of fairy dust, minerals are still required to build batteries etc

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/climate-change-and-renewables-driving-new-mining-boom-mining-chief-says-20181029-p50cm5.html

As far as climate change goes I suspect that we will never agree and as I say what you or I believe makes little difference. To be honest what I find the most challenging about your opinion is that if you are right we are talking the most massive conspiracy ever involving nearly all the whole scientific community as well almost every scientific body. The only conclusion surely is that NASA etc are corrupt for some reason, you will probably suggest it is to get funding but I would suggest that NASA would do better saying "Hey Donald we can prove climate change is not a problem or not happening, but it will cost a lot" Any proposition that requires a large conspiracy is likely to be problematic. Why are some many so many doubters, not actually climate scientists? Sure this does not make them wrong but many people make claims about cancer but I do not think it is foolish to seek one's treatment from an oncologist rather than an accountant.

I must say I am interested in the way this "conspiracy" would work? when was it started? How do all the space agencies make sure their measurements match? Since NASA data can't be relied upon where you advise someone go for information? Is NASAs aeronautical research dodgy as well?

Will Australia be part of this exciting technology, or will be left behind by the rest of the world (including Tunisia)?

World’s largest battery: 200MW/800MWh vanadium flow battery – site work ongoing

We can always buy technology from China rather than being forward-looking an innovative ourselves.

"Without a degree in Aus, there is only so far one can go in what I do or have done."

I must tell my son that. The only bits of paper he has are his HSC and Cert II in Basic IT from TAFE, which he got as one of his HSC subjects. Lacking a degree must make it hard for him when he is signing six figure contracts with clients for his Digital Marketing skills. He got to the starting line through hard work and having a goal. It also helped that he has the Gift of the Gab when it comes to business.

Yep same here. My son was home educated, at 15 he did a diploma in PC games production and at 29 has his own company with 8 employees and I think has more money than god. Nothing wrong with a degree andit necessary in many fields it is not the only path to happiness and success.

BOM have nothing to do with climate, they deal with weather.

Whilst BoM may not be as involved in long term climate predictions its data does form a part of climate change evidence. I would have assumed that you would have thought BoM was part of the global conspiracy, By the way, do you believe the global average temperature has increased in the last 100 years (for whatever reason)?

Climate change – trends and extremes

[ATTACH]50089._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Were does our BOM, get their money from.?.spacesailor

The BoM gets its money mainly from the government but also through selling its services. It is also routinely audited and found to be professional.

What you are suggesting is that the BoM is telling the government what they want to hear but why would a government who downplays climate change order the BoM to inflate temperatures. Wouldn't it be more logical for BoM say to the government "give us more money and we will make the data agree with your policies"

You actually believe that when Tony Abbott was the leader he was saying to BoM I know I said climate change is crap but can you please adjust the temperatures up to me look foolish?

By the way, you know you can download raw data from BoM for your area perhaps you could do some investigation. Buy a high-quality thermometer and double check their readings Also you can get live data collected from automatic weather stations. It surely would be easy to your nearest station and double check? I can see the current temperature at my local station (Geelong Racecourse) is 15,2C When I was in The RAAF I used to see the RAAF officer checking the weather instruments (before automation) I guess he must have been in on the scam>

Who tells our BoM what temperatures to report." it's a government department, so the government tells them, & if they Don't do what their told, they are Unemployed

By government, you mean this government that actually doesn't accept the science? I dont see the logic in that. Does the equivalent of the BoM in the US take instruction from Trump, sorry but illogical!

The lithium battery types seem to have best life if not fully discharged - I believe they like shallow cycles. The current (sorry for the pun) hybrid vehicles are all use lithium batteries, and work on a 'partial discharge - then top' up usage, and it seems to work.

The nickel cadmium batteries seemed to have best life when deep cycled.

 

I suspect that the EV might be quite happy to have short runs and a top up each night.

 

At least, that's how I understand it. I stand to be corrected.

I think that is about right. my son has a 5 year BMWI3 which I spent the last 2 weeks driving and he just plugs it in every night. He is only using a standard 8amp charger. It is set to charge automatically when the off-peak tariff kicks in. The cost on off-peak is $1 per 100km. At 5 years the battery has only lost 500 wh. He is trading it in on a Tesla 3 when they become available in NZ, I can't wait to drive it.

I believe regarding batteries that there are software limitations imposed, when it says it is empty it is not actually totally flat and the charging regime is controlled for longest battery life.

I have a hypothesis. Please don't think I am trying to make political points. The perceived headline of each parties campaign could be perhaps summed up this way. One party promising to put more money into hospitals and schools and to tackle future problems but perhaps they won't cut tax and may reduce some benefits vs the other party saying we won't spend more on those things but we will make sure you get a few extra in tax relief. This is an oversimplification but perhaps some people are too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they place there own self-interest above more social orientated goals. To put it more crudely if someone publicly offered me $50 and said you can keep it or help improve education or the health system I would find it hard to say "nope I want the $50" As I say just a hypothesis with no evidence.

The arguments used by those who doubt the evidence are very similar to the arguments presented by the anti-evolution crowd i.e. the mainstream scientists have it wrong and are involved in a conspiracy and only a few individuals can see the real truth. I can give the denial case no more respect than I give the anti-evolution folks. Even though the oil companies are dragging their feet (although I sense this is changing) they do not deny the role of burning fossil fuels in climate change.

At the very least the doubters must admit that their view is an extreme minority. I have already asked this many times but if we can't trust the mainstream science organisations where do we go for reliable information Breitbart? Fox news? Andrew Bolt?

Another question is, how does this conspiracy work? Who tells our BoM what temperatures to report. Does NASA tell ESA or JAXA how to interpret their satellite data? I do have as a casual acquaintance (a client) who is a Professor of atmospheric physics, is he part of the conspiracy? From whom does he receive his instructions?

I wonder about battery efficiency. The Hyundai Kona gets over 400km from full charge, I see the Nissan above will get 270ish. So what if you don't use it, do only 50 a day and charge it each night how will the batteries fare. For best condition and longevity of life should you wait till Battery is low before charge.Maybe they should bring out a cheaper commuter with 100km range for day to day. Most families these days have two breadwinners and if they can afford, 2 cars. A little run around and a family car.

I think people don't necessarily plug their car in every night.

There is certainly a component of human induced climate change. It just isn’t a threatening change within the overall changes that are always taking place ad always have taken place. There is no immediate threat. The statistics do not support a threat. The alarmist arguments are based on complex computer modelling and I reject that work. I have used computer models in the past in my work and know that the complex ones are good for convincing people who don’t understand their limitations, but are misleading to those using them for prediction.

I have put this point before but I will give it one more go.

Unless you are 100% right you must concede that there is a chance that you are wrong and must, therefore, consider the consequences of doing nothing. Your position (if it were widely held) would mean that we wait until it is a problem so large it cannot be denied. Only then do you start to tackle it but of course if some of the worst predictions occur it will be too late.

My position is this: my level of certainty is high but not 100% I, therefore, have to consider the small chance that the whole thing is a hoax. I ask myself what are the negative consequences of taking measured but urgent action now. If it is a hoax then history will look back at the time when we paid 7% more for our electricity (according to the ACCC) when we could have just kept burning coal (although CO2 is not the only bad thing about burning coal). The coal will still be in the fossil fuel bank, perhaps as a gift to our grandchildren to use as they see fit.

You may be very sure about your position but you surely have to admit that the consequences of doing nothing for a real problem are more problematic than the consequences of doing something for an imagined problem.

It really does not matter what you or I believe, we are changing the way we power our society just as we have at various times in the past and will again in the future. I am not even sure if governments will lead the way, so much progress is being made by private enterprise for example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDvKJIm2WU8:421

We have plenty of evidence from the email scandal

No, we don't. This event "climategate" was the subject of many enquiries. Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

But of course, I guess you will say this is part of the conspiracy

I believe Shell has not denied that these papers are genuine. You suggest that those studies may be an early attempt to understand etc. OK so what do they believe today? Perhaps we could delve into what Shell thinks now.

From Shell's 2018 report Disclaimer - Shell Annual Report 2018 (click on the enter report button)

Climate change and energy transition

Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system. In December 2015, 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement. We welcomed the efforts made by governments to reach this global climate agreement, which entered into force in November 2016. We fully support the Paris Agreement’s goal to keep the rise in global average temperature this century to well below two degrees Celsius (2°C) above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. In pursuit of this goal, we also support the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system. Shell agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report, which states that in order to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the world economy would need to transform in a number of complex and connected ways. Meeting this challenge would require an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change in the coming decades than was foreseen in the Paris Agreement.

Society faces a dual challenge: how to transition to a low-carbon energy future to manage the risks of climate change, while also extending the economic and social benefits of energy to everyone on the planet. This is an ambition that requires changes in the way energy is produced, used and made accessible to more people while drastically cutting emissions.

We believe that the need to reduce GHG emissions, which are largely caused by burning fossil fuels, will transform the energy system in this century. This transformation will generate both challenges and opportunities for our existing and future portfolio.

We welcome and support efforts, such as those led by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), to increase transparency and to promote investors’ understanding of companies’ strategies to respond to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. We believe that companies should be clear about how they plan to be resilient in the energy transition. In 2017, we joined the Oil and Gas Preparer Forum, initiated by the TCFD and convened by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The forum´s objectives are to review the current state of climate-related financial disclosures, to identify examples of effective disclosure practices and make proposals on how disclosures may evolve over time. The Shell Energy Transition Report published in April 2018 (2018 SET report) described the energy transition and considered Shell’s resilience against future scenarios. The 2018 SET report followed our discussions with the TCFD about increasing transparency to help investors understand climate-related risks and opportunities. Our approach to the energy transition as described in the 2018 SET report, in combination with the Shell Sustainability Report (April 2019) aims to complement this Report in responding to TCFD recommendations, including discussing the energy transition and Shell´s portfolio resilience.

OK what about Exxon ExxonMobil’s four decades of climate science research | ExxonMobil

I could go on

You say that NASA is lying to generate more funding, even though it seems pretty obvious that more funds could be gained by supporting Trump's beliefs on the matter. I do note however that you do not seem to apply the same scepticism to those few geologists who disagree with the evidence but also seem to have worked or still work for the fossil fuel industry.

If as you say NASA is not reliable as well as ESA JAXA indeed these organisations Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the is too long to detail however I can list the non-commital organisations, American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Professional Geologists Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

And Opposing - Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[23][25]

If all of the bodies mentioned are involved in a conspiracy and therefore cannot be trusted I would be interested to see your list of trusted sources?

In the end, I can't convince you of anything you don't want to accept and I have no wish to. I believe passionately in the scientific method and the power of peer review to work towards the truth. I have little time for anti-vaxxers and evolutionists and flat earthers. What these people all have in common is that they dismiss data collected and analysed by many scientists throughout the world and then peer reviewed in favour of individuals who claim that the data is faked. They search hard for any fragment of data that they feel may cast doubt.

By the way, do you know who Hill & Knowlton Inc. Inc. are? They are a public relations company that has been engaged by the Tabacco industry and surprise surprise also the oil industry as well as the asbestos industry and other dubious causes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill+Knowlton_Strategies#Controversies

meanwhile in China First phase of China’s biggest flow battery put into operation by VRB Energy

I don't own shares so don't get franking credits, my money was accrued other ways, not through fiddling, I agree with you on the franking credits, just so you know My money was earned fair and square and no I will not share it with lesser people who don't think ahead, 51 years in Aus and I have seen what labour did financially in the time they were in office , labor themselves have served the top end of town and their rich friends as well as Libs but personally I have always done well under Libs not labor

I am personally thankful for the superannuation guarantee and also Medicare. I have never minded paying tax to support others such as pensioners and the medical treatment of others. I am not wealthy but I guess supporting my community when I can and drawing from it when I need help just seems to be a happier healthier way to live.

since the election was called I have been on the ground door nocking letter box dropping and at a prepoll boothhave been abused told to get a job that that f/w wont get in and the most of the crap came from take a stab in the dark

 

yep if you said labor and the greens YOU are the winner :gaah:so it just goes to show the mentality of the sheep the followed shorten and dr de idiot

 

according to shorten and greens many who have saved and put money away for that rainy day have to give it to the bludgers

 

the persons that vote labor or greens should have a sighn on the gate saying that they want more taxes more costly electricity genital mutalation

 

oh by the way me mates wife who has a mouth cancer HAS PAID OUT OF POCKET expences zero neil

Geez, Neil, your side won and you are still angry and unhappy. Winning gracefully is just as important losing gracefully.

Octave,far from it i am living the dream,building an aircraft,volenteer in a school for underprivileged kids,look after and adore my 4 1/2year old grandaughter 2 days and drive for old folks bus 1 morning si not angry at all

That is good to hear.

oh dear scot wins the towels are on there way for those off you that are crying go scotand by the way your free solar panel and wind turbines are on there way out neil

Neil, I can only speak for myself but I think you overestimate the importance of who wins or loses to me. My daily life does not change much either way regardless of Lib or Lab government. I am still having a happy life so I will forgo the towel but thanks for the offer. So congrats to you (and the large banks) you must be so relieved:smile: