Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by southerncross, Oct 15, 2013.
Maybe you had 30 or 40 years of fuel?
SX... should have put a smiley, next to my comment . I did however take time to google up previous climate in Australia prior to 1788..
Wow that is a mine field...Ice ages, land bridges, sea levels, native populations etc etc. Through to the keeper, I say.
Interesting of note was the high level of inflammable vapors emitted from the tops of gum trees. Maybe that is why the flames of the fires get so high. Would the leaves on the ground make such a huge difference? Flames from the crown of the fire reach 60ft high and can leap over 100ft.
Going by some native people the burn offs should be conducted in Autumn..Maybe the white people should take note.
Regards Errol 43
I tried to argue that point when I was at uni with an environmental science lecturer. He shouted down that entire topic. Maybe if I put it into a 5000 word essay with a minimum of 28 references he may have taken notice.
And I'm talking more than a decade ago here! I wonder if attitudes have changed in academia. Important to know as academics easilly slot themselves into local/state government including the agencies standing in the way of fuel load burnoffs.
Good point Errol, I can remember when growing up in the northern NT the place was always on fire during the end of the wet middle of the dry season (jarathamiri I think it was called? it was always burning here or there and we used to get in front of the fires waiting for lizards and small beasties to run out. It was a slow burn though and there was always a patch you could just walk (or run) off to the side that had already been burnt or was just on the regrow
Nothings changed on that front I don't think Anglo, I heard one prick argue last year that all that smoke only added to the problem of Australias CO2 emission's and soot in the air. A professor no less, a few classes later another knob head from the humanity's side of the circus who was at the lecture took him to task for denigrating the first peoples though all the while agreeing with the problem of CO2 increasing the global temperature. The worst part was all the under twenty's nodding heads with serious thoughtful (or confused) looks on their faces.
Poor fellow me my country
I'm always wondering about blame when it comes to bushfires. I suppose the reality is that some years are just worse than others - just look at how many they had in the U.S. in 2006 compared to other years: http://www.statista.com/statistics/203983/-number-of-wildland-fires-in-the-us/
But that's an interesting point Errol makes about the gum trees, I never knew that. It could be a good explanation for the ferocity of some of the recent fires.
Here's how they change the Climate, Weather , Public perceptions.
And then ?
In plain speak, Taxpayers foot the bill for it all and need to be scared/encouraged to keep it all going. Private investors will invest more when/if they know that the investment is backed by Taxpayers money and they wont lose out.
And it all achieves what for the environment ?
SX..m8...yOU CERTAINLY do a lot of research finding out about the current state of the world affairs..I try to too.
I read with interest your post about the 4 horseman and with banksters of the last 4 centuries controlling the world as far as finance is concerned. I too think that is pretty close to the reality of it all. Especially with DERIVATIVES. It seems to point to the fact that these small group of people control all banking, all big mining industries, manufacturing industries etc etc. This runs into trillions of $$$$.. we are the salves of these banksters.
Now with Environmental alarmism at the start of post 66, it points out that this fund is set to disburse $200 billion a year to the developing nations.
This is small change compared to the $$$ the masterminds of the slave drivers control from 4 centuries ago and continues to this day.
What is the difference if you are a slave on who owns you, the 4 horsemen or the desciples of the four horsemen?
Let the peasants argue about such things as climate change. It means that we can get them to work harder then we can steal their $$$ earned through years of toil.. That could well be another business venture of the 4 horsemen.. Fund both sides of the Climate debate just like the wars.
IMO the only hope is for the whole bloody system to come crashing down and to start again. Bad to the bone is my interpretation.
They are too clever by half for people such as you or I.
Regards Errol 43 rower 43 galley slave
Hey old M8
You always keep me thinking Errol, I often contemplate that you know a lot more than what you ask with your red and blue questions.
You ask what's the difference if you are a slave on who owns you when it comes to the minuscule amount of $200 billion a year for the climate. I don't think it is the amount that matters really. It is more to do with the conditioning of it all, once you accept the initial proposal the rest is a fait accompli. The foot is in the door and the amount is adjusted to coincide with what is bearable for the payee, though always ever upwards.
Does it matter who owns you ? not really. But there is a caveat to that, just as in sexual tastes we all have our likes and dislikes and if you are going to get fucked it may as well be by someone you like huh ? My guess is that this is the reason they give us a choice every three years, You still have to put out either way but the majority chooses the pimp.
I choose neither by not voting for any of them. I might have my own ideological viewpoint that aligns me with one side over the other but that aside I am also aware that both are bad for me and mine.
As for arguing the point on climate change you may well be quite right but to my mind I am choosing the lesser of two evils. We sheeple were told that excess CO2 would raise the temperature and we needed to curtail our use of fossil fuels (the main driver of industry and electricity) , on every standard of measurement over the last thirty years they were wrong. On every prediction ever made convincing us all of the need to fork out dollars and restrict our use of modern conveniences they were wrong. Even by their own multiple adjusted records and models they were wrong. And yet people still buy the meme that we can somehow change the climate to any great extent and must punish and restrict ourselves accordingly by damaging our industry and paying for our sin of being successful ?
Sorry but I don't accept that. Both the red and the blue teams have devices to separate us from the gains of our labour when it comes to the big scary of climate change. It is even written into law. It's the same old technique of providing a scare and then a solution that only they can provide. (with your tax dollars)
Agenda 21 is real, it is a google search away, look it up and compare the requirements with your basic local council laws.
Go back and listen to the last couple of minutes of the second vid I posted.
Oh Noes , we are doomed
Not by that though, that's just the weather. Mind you if it was heat temperatures being broken like that the media would be screaming it in your faces 24/7 for weeks on end.
No this is why we are doomed.
Now we in the the west get to pay for the weather, the weather caused by climate change that hasn't changed for the last 17 years.
If this bloke comes down our skylight he's going out feet first.
Now I am prepared to accept that monies flow to the green tree movement as SX rightly point out..
Now to get a balance , dare I say that a lot of $$ flow from the oil, industrial and power to fund the anti green campaign.
The koch brothers in the USA give millions of $$ to fight against opposition to their interests in the energy section
I will try tonight to get the $$ given by the pro energy groups.
Regards Errol 43
You might also want to take a look at oil and gas money going to the green lobby groups as well Errol, seems there is a move towards moving coal down the list in favour of gas. Even though it is a cheaper source of energy coal is painted by big energy companys such as shell as extremely dirty compared to gas and they don't mind who it is that helps them get the bigger slice of the energy market. Shell pushes renewables to set itself up for more profits.
Going by your post ^^^66, $7.5 million given by 10 countries to the green climate fund,is but a drop in the ocean compared with what the major corporations give to Congressmen and Senators in the USA.
Oil and gas companies gave $15,078,146 to REPUBLICAN Congressman and SENATORS FOR THE LAST ELECTION. Meanwhile Environmental groups donated $2,847.072 TO DEMOCRATIC Congressmen and Senators.
Koch Industries who lobbied to build a pipeline from Canada to the USA (KEYSTONE xl PIPELINE). The 234 congressional representatives who voted yes received $42 million from the fossil fuel industry while those that voted no, received $8 million.
The US Supreme Court removed the cap on donations prior to this happening.
For every $1 the oil and gas industry gives it gets back $59 in subsides..
Oil and gas lobby gave $175,454,820 in 2009 and $ i 146,032,543 in 2010.
All this info came from a google search, but as you suggest I will also have a look at oil and gas money going to the green lobby? I just can't understand at this point why they would do so and for what benefit?
Regards Errol 43
Some more detail here on political donations and who paid what to who http://www.opensecrets.org/industries./indus.php?ind=E01
One thing that needs to be remembered though is that these are company's who are competing with each other as well.
Another point is that without the oil, gas and coal company's the economy of the whole planet would grind to a screeching halt. It's all well and good to use a figure such as $58 received for every dollar spent as a subsidy but what is the context of that figure and who is saying it ? Some links to the info would be good.
Company A has a large gas reserve.
Company B has a large cheap coal reserve it currently supply's to a cheap electricity provider.
Greenpeace, WWF, Climatechange hysterics Et al hate them both equally.
Company A say's hey gas is cleaner we would be better for the environment, why don't you bring that to the attention of everybody here's some funding to help.
Comany A knows that windmills and solar are very inefficient at maintaining a regular supply of electricity to grid standard and all need back up generation supply.
What better way to take out the competition ?
(A.)I got my info from The Huffington Post , Dec 5th 2013. How the Oil Lobby greases Washington's Wheels.
(B) Dirty Energy Money.com
Fossil Fuel Funding to Congress
The Price of oil.
(C) Wikipedia...Fossil Fuel Lobby
Exxon Mobil, Royal dutch Shell. BP, Koch Industries, General Electric and First energy to name some of the largest contributors for the Fossil Fuel Lobby.
Regards Errol 43
Separate names with a comma.