The climate change debate continues.

[facthunter]

Talk to Scotty. Nev

[old man emu]

On 26/02/2026 at 10:04 PM, kgwilson said:

digital migration

Back in the day this was called hitchhiking.

[onetrack]

The Tuvaluans are planning on thumbing their way to high ground?? How innovative of them!

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Back in the day this was called hitchhiking.

Nah, that's not digital, unless a thumb is a digit?

[onetrack]

The thumb is classed as a digit of the hand, according to my information source. But that source also tells me that an upraised centre digit, conveys unspoken messages more effectively. 😄 

[nomadpete]

OK you got me there. You are obviously more digitally competant than I.

 

However I'd say that the 'upwardly raised middle finger' is unlikely to result in any transport.

[facthunter]

Do it to a copper and you will be transported somewhere. Nev

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

The thumb is classed as a digit of the hand, according to my information source. But that source also tells me that an upraised centre digit, conveys unspoken messages more effectively. 😄 

Good luck getting a lift though!

[onetrack]

The upraised middle digit is for those departing vehicles that refused to give you a lift!  😄 

[facthunter]

There is so many weirdo's about I wouldn't advise anyone to give people a lift. Unfortunately THAT is the world we NOW live in, Way back you Left doors unlocked and  left Cars with dodgy Batteries, idling in the street, while you ran into the shop.  Nev

[red750]

Used to doing a bit of hitch hiking in my late teens. Family lived in Warragul and I was employed in the bank in Melbourne. In those days, banks opened on Saturday mornings, so I didn't knock of until the last train for the day had departed. Had to get home to get my washing done.

 

I remember being picked up one day by a woman in her 50's/60's. She was prepared with a hammer on her knee.

[Jerry_Atrick]

You got out alive! Well done.

 

[pmccarthy]

I Come To Bury Howard

by David Archibald

10 February 2026

 Certainly not to praise him. The evil he did as Prime Minister has gone on for too long. Howard’s last dark deed, after he lost the September 2007 election, was to pass the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. To put that in context, when he was a teenager Howard used to cross Sydney to sit at the knee of Sir Philip Baxter, former head of the Australian Energy Commission, and hear of the wonders of nuclear energy. As an elected politician, he became a one-man sleeper cell of nuclear advocacy.

 

In private conversations, Howard used to call global warming nonsense. Nevertheless, he worked towards bringing in a carbon tax. He wanted Australia to adopt nuclear energy. To force Australia to that result, he needed to make coal-fired power generation more expensive. He was being two-faced and too cute. The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act was the accounting basis for the tax. The idea was to bring it in, settle it down over a couple of years and then start taxing.

Some 1,000 Australian companies continue to report their carbon consumption under that act. The total cost of employing all the accountants for this may be of the order of $500 million per annum. All of which is wasted. Close to $10 billion has been wasted over the years, for nothing. Fifteen years ago I used to be invited to give speeches at anti-carbon tax rallies on the east coast. After one such rally in front of Parliament House, I went in to meet Senator Nick Minchin, then considered to be the hard man of the Liberal right. I said to the Senator that the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act should be repealed. He replied “Why would we do that?,” which meant that he had no idea how the world worked. He also said that nobody in cabinet asked Howard why he was proceeding with the carbon tax. Not that they weren’t curious about doing something so stupid, they were afraid of upsetting him. They would rather national self-harm than lose their spot in cabinet.

Abbott won the 2013 election on a platform of getting rid of the carbon tax. Three days later Greg Hunt, then Liberal member for Goldstein and a Klaus Schwab protégé, talked him out of repealing the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. Why get rid of the carbon tax but keep the accounting basis for it? So stupid, but he did it. The carbon tax came back in other forms. The price of electric power tripled. Businesses and whole industries are closing.

Last year the Liberal Party formally abandoned a commitment to carbon taxes, but they still yearn to remain in the Paris mutual suicide pact of 2015. This confused position means they don’t believe the words coming out of their own mouths. The electorate have noticed and are now looking elsewhere for the promise of rational government. But there is an easy test of any party’s grip on reality. If their platform does not include repeal of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, they don’t understand anything and their professed concern for the future of our country is only performative.

So far, no political party has undertaken to do so and the country remains on a glide slope to oblivion. In the meantime, as our standard of living keeps falling, curse John Howard. Curse him in living and curse him in dying. He could have killed the global warming monster in its crib but chose instead to live a lie. We continue to suffer because of his contempt for the Australian people.

[red750]

𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐒𝐊𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐓𝐘 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐎𝐅 𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐀’𝐒 𝐋𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐑 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐓𝐌𝐎𝐒𝐏𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝟐. 𝐒𝐇𝐄 𝐃𝐈𝐃𝐍’𝐓 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖.
Former Australian broadcaster Allen Jones asked Deputy Labor Leader Tanya Plibersek the simplest possible question about the policy her party wants to restructure the entire economy around.
“𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦? 𝘐𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘥𝘦?”
“𝘠𝘦𝘴”, Plibersek replied.
“𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩’𝘴 𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘥𝘦?”
“𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸”.
Jones’ response: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥, 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸?”
The answer is 𝟎.𝟎𝟒%. Not 4%. Not 0.4%. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭. Of that 0.04%, human activity accounts for roughly 𝟑%. And of that 3%, Australia contributes about 𝟏.𝟑%.
Jones put it in terms anyone could understand: “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦. 𝘊𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘶𝘱. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘺”.
And for that granule of sugar, Australia and every Western nation pursuing net zero is “𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳, 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘱 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺”.
This is the core problem with climate policy globally. The people demanding trillions in economic restructuring 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 about the science they claim to follow. They don’t know the numbers. They don’t know the proportions. They just know the conclusion — and they’ll rearrange society to match it.
𝐒𝐡𝐞’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐠𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧’𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧.

[facthunter]

That's a Gross Misrepresentation of the Effects of CO2 red. They are twofold, Greenhouse effect and acidic effect in water. The Increase is what is the Problem & Both are well Known accepted and Understood. Sea Temps are rising and that's causing great changes in  weather patterns World wide. More extremes More cyclones going further from the  equator than they used to., Higher sea temps involve More Latent heat of Evaporation of Water and that's a very Large amount of Energy. Nev