Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia’s coal industry has a “big future, as well as a big past” and predicted it will be the world’s principal energy source for decades to come.
“Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

==========================================================

“Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty….Without energy, there is no economic growth, there is no dynamism, and there is no opportunity.”

RACHEL KYTE, vice president and special envoy for
climate change, World Bank
————————————————————————————————————

Since 1973, coal consumption has grown faster than any other form of energy. Growth in coal consumption has been critical in providing electricity access in developing countries. Based on the results of three different estimates, this paper finds that between 1990 and 2010, about 830 million people—the vast majority in developing countries—gained access to electricity due to coal-fired generation. Coal-fired-generation capacity continues to grow in wealthy countries, too. For electricity production, no other energy source can currently match the black fuel when it comes to cost, scale, and reliability.

While the rate of growth in global coal use has slowed in recent months and coal prices have softened, coal demand remains strong because the fuel is cheap and abundant, deposits are geographically widespread, and the market for it is not affected by OPEC-like entities.

Coal, which now accounts for about 40 percent of all global electricity production, will likely maintain its dominant role for decades to come. Electricity-poor countries, along with those that are electricity-rich, are currently building hundreds of gigawatts of new coal-fired electricity-generation capacity.

The nine countries discussed in this paper—China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, and South Korea—are planning to build about 550 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity over the next two and a half decades. The vast majority of that, some 400 gigawatts, is planned for China. Given the coal industry’s recent history and the ongoing surge in global coal use, there is little reason to believe that any of the much-discussed international efforts to impose a cap or tax on carbon-dioxide emissions will prevail.

Robert Bryce. http://thegwpf.us4.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=cb147fa500&e=c1a146df99

U.N. calls to curb greenhouse gas emissions by ending most electricity generation using coal will face some tough challenges, with coal mining going through a growth spurt in countries such as Australia. Although coal is blamed for contributing to climate change and causing large amounts of harmful pollution, it remains by far the most important fuel for power generation at a global share of around 40 percent. The size of the challenge is reflected in forecasts for energy demand growth across Asia, where coal is the fuel of choice and expected to meet almost 60 percent of demand growth over the next 20 years, according to Roche.

James Regan, Reuters, 3 November 2014. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/03/coal-australia-climate-change-idUKL4N0ST1NN20141103

The_observer said:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia’s coal industry has a “big future, as well as a big past” and predicted it will be the world’s principal energy source for decades to come.
“Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

That’s because Abbott is a narrow minded twat.

Robert Bryce http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_14.htm#.VFfpOPmUfw9

Divine Angel said:

The_observer said:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia’s coal industry has a “big future, as well as a big past” and predicted it will be the world’s principal energy source for decades to come.
“Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

That’s because Abbott is a narrow minded twat.

read past his quote & you’ll realise that statement is , well, silly.

The_observer said:

Divine Angel said:

The_observer said:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia’s coal industry has a “big future, as well as a big past” and predicted it will be the world’s principal energy source for decades to come.
“Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

That’s because Abbott is a narrow minded twat.

read past his quote & you’ll realise that statement is , well, silly.

No. It doesn’t change what Tony Abbot is.

The_observer said:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia’s coal industry has a “big future, as well as a big past” and predicted it will be the world’s principal energy source for decades to come.
“Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

No one can be the “suppository of all wisdom”.

Skeppo reckons the coal industry is as bad as horse racing…

What about peat?

Tony said – “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity”

between 1990 and 2010, about 830 million people—the vast majority in developing countries—gained access to electricity due to coal-fired generation.

RACHEL KYTE, vice president and special envoy for climate change, World Bank said -
“Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty….Without energy, there is no economic growth, there is no dynamism, and there is no opportunity.”

Tony said – “coal is an essential part of our economic future.”

China is planning to build about 400 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity over the next two and a half decades. They’ll be importing coal from Australia.

China also intends to own its own ports in Australia, frack the whole eastern side of Australia, feck off with all the profit and totally leave us in the lurch so to speak. Tony is licking their proffered collective coits. How is this good for the humanity in Australia?

roughbarked said:

China also intends to own its own ports in Australia, frack the whole eastern side of Australia, feck off with all the profit and totally leave us in the lurch so to speak.

is that what Clive said?

All this means is that we will have to buy back our own coal and gas at inflated prices. Gough will be turning over in his grave.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

China also intends to own its own ports in Australia, frack the whole eastern side of Australia, feck off with all the profit and totally leave us in the lurch so to speak.

is that what Clive said?

Facts.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

China also intends to own its own ports in Australia, frack the whole eastern side of Australia, feck off with all the profit and totally leave us in the lurch so to speak.

is that what Clive said?

Facts.

refs

roughbarked said:

All this means is that we will have to buy back our own coal and gas at inflated prices. Gough will be turning over in his grave.

no, we will sell coal to china. We get the money, that’s how it works.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

is that what Clive said?

Facts.

refs

Common knowledge.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Facts.

refs

Common knowledge.

common knowledge is that we made a load of money during the mining boom selling to china

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

All this means is that we will have to buy back our own coal and gas at inflated prices. Gough will be turning over in his grave.

no, we will sell coal to china. We get the money, that’s how it works.

Some of us will be part of the multinationals ripping the rest of us off.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

All this means is that we will have to buy back our own coal and gas at inflated prices. Gough will be turning over in his grave.

no, we will sell coal to china. We get the money, that’s how it works.

Some of us will be part of the multinationals ripping the rest of us off.

the prosperity has a flow on effect.

China will either buy off us or someone else.

countries are very eager to be trade partners with China

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

refs

Common knowledge.

common knowledge is that we made a load of money during the mining boom selling to china

Common knowledge also tells me that we only made a tiny fraction of the moneys involved enter our coffers at great cost to the future of the nation and the world. As a trade off China dumps cheap goods on our doorstep like any mafioso type does, in lieu of real payment.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Common knowledge.

common knowledge is that we made a load of money during the mining boom selling to china

Common knowledge also tells me that we only made a tiny fraction of the moneys involved enter our coffers at great cost to the future of the nation and the world. As a trade off China dumps cheap goods on our doorstep like any mafioso type does, in lieu of real payment.

wild accusations need hard proof to back them up. opinions don’t matter.

Coal export is positive for Australia

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

common knowledge is that we made a load of money during the mining boom selling to china

Common knowledge also tells me that we only made a tiny fraction of the moneys involved enter our coffers at great cost to the future of the nation and the world. As a trade off China dumps cheap goods on our doorstep like any mafioso type does, in lieu of real payment.

wild accusations need hard proof to back them up. opinions don’t matter.

Coal export is positive for Australia

Being the only thing we have got, isn’t.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Common knowledge also tells me that we only made a tiny fraction of the moneys involved enter our coffers at great cost to the future of the nation and the world. As a trade off China dumps cheap goods on our doorstep like any mafioso type does, in lieu of real payment.

wild accusations need hard proof to back them up. opinions don’t matter.

Coal export is positive for Australia

Being the only thing we have got, isn’t.

well back to the topic, cheap coal power is the best tool to lift the poor out of poverty & coal fired power is increasing & will be the dominant source of power generation globally for some time, with or without Tony as PM

Coal is good
Ignorance is strength
Pollution is wealth

There’s no way of stopping it, the coal industry is too strong

It needn’t have been. We could be leading the way into the future if we were smarter than Tony and yourself are pragmatically sticking to.

roughbarked said:

It needn’t have been. We could be leading the way into the future if we were smarter than Tony and yourself are pragmatically sticking to.

I don’t see a practical alternative to coal fired power stations.

wookiemeister said:

There’s no way of stopping it, the coal industry is too strong

Wasn’t suggesting that it can be stopped. If it has to be used then we should realise the power of the wealth.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

It needn’t have been. We could be leading the way into the future if we were smarter than Tony and yourself are pragmatically sticking to.

I don’t see a practical alternative to coal fired power stations.

Doesn’t mean there cannot be simply because they don’t currently exist.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

It needn’t have been. We could be leading the way into the future if we were smarter than Tony and yourself are pragmatically sticking to.

I don’t see a practical alternative to coal fired power stations.

Doesn’t mean there cannot be simply because they don’t currently exist.

True. But wouldn’t that mean that at present coal is good for humanity?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

China also intends to own its own ports in Australia, frack the whole eastern side of Australia, feck off with all the profit and totally leave us in the lurch so to speak.

is that what Clive said?

It makes sense for China to do the above

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

I don’t see a practical alternative to coal fired power stations.

Doesn’t mean there cannot be simply because they don’t currently exist.

True. But wouldn’t that mean that at present coal is good for humanity?

Good for some perhaps but not practical in so many ways it iss all straw.

Australia has been, currently is and will most likely always be small fry on the world circuit. Politicians will do anything to maintain the scraps the world throws at us for our resources and to hell with any concerns for our environment and our long term future. China is doing what any super power does and use others for its own gain, we are far more dependent on them to buy our resources than they are on us selling them.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

There’s no way of stopping it, the coal industry is too strong

Wasn’t suggesting that it can be stopped. If it has to be used then we should realise the power of the wealth.

Society doesn’t work that way

The thing about mining is the boom and bust nature of it

Sure lower taxes for the coal mines, get rid of the taxes but in the meantime the government should open its own coal mines and reap the profits directly into the public purse on the open market , why do we insist on taking other people’s precious profits?

Lets open our own mines and get money directly from the source we don’t need funding coming from mining companies, we can employ our own workers directly hundreds of thousands of them.

Because most money will be ploughed into employing people rather than profit we can train, employ, house, educate people.

If we don’t use as many people in the mines directly because of automation fine, we can employ them in different ways, perhaps to make solar cells but only for domestic use, we make our own renewable energy source and sell coal to the rest of the world, we find a space programme.

We’d need to reduce the number if desk jockeys and get rid of the existing management in great numbers first though

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Doesn’t mean there cannot be simply because they don’t currently exist.

True. But wouldn’t that mean that at present coal is good for humanity?

Good for some perhaps but not practical in so many ways it iss all straw.

For the majority of people coal generated power is the only source of electricity.

Cymek said:

Australia has been, currently is and will most likely always be small fry on the world circuit. Politicians will do anything to maintain the scraps the world throws at us for our resources and to hell with any concerns for our environment and our long term future. China is doing what any super power does and use others for its own gain, we are far more dependent on them to buy our resources than they are on us selling them.

We don’t have to see it the way it is. We can do all sorts of things. However it is in many ways up to individual Australians to drive this market demand.

We could harness coal to make plastic perhaps rather than oil?

You could use all that coal money to manufacture things that don’t break down ( only for domestic use)

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

There’s no way of stopping it, the coal industry is too strong

Wasn’t suggesting that it can be stopped. If it has to be used then we should realise the power of the wealth.

Society doesn’t work that way

The thing about mining is the boom and bust nature of it

Sure lower taxes for the coal mines, get rid of the taxes but in the meantime the government should open its own coal mines and reap the profits directly into the public purse on the open market , why do we insist on taking other people’s precious profits?

Lets open our own mines and get money directly from the source we don’t need funding coming from mining companies, we can employ our own workers directly hundreds of thousands of them.

Because most money will be ploughed into employing people rather than profit we can train, employ, house, educate people.

If we don’t use as many people in the mines directly because of automation fine, we can employ them in different ways, perhaps to make solar cells but only for domestic use, we make our own renewable energy source and sell coal to the rest of the world, we find a space programme.

We’d need to reduce the number if desk jockeys and get rid of the existing management in great numbers first though

Glad you chucked in the last bit. :-)

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

True. But wouldn’t that mean that at present coal is good for humanity?

Good for some perhaps but not practical in so many ways it iss all straw.

For the majority of people coal generated power is the only source of electricity.

It doesn’t have to stay that way until all of Australia is undermined. This country should have more brians than Econotony.

wookiemeister said:

We could harness coal to make plastic perhaps rather than oil?

You could use all that coal money to manufacture things that don’t break down ( only for domestic use)

Why not make it all into diamonds?

wookiemeister said:

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

Gough tried that and got the sack.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

We could harness coal to make plastic perhaps rather than oil?

You could use all that coal money to manufacture things that don’t break down ( only for domestic use)

Why not make it all into diamonds?

Superman is American

My last job was a gov owned business , the management were only interested in staying in their job, so you’d not be employing ANY existing government management , you wouldn’t poison the well from the outset- nor would you employ any of them in the future.

Normal workers fine but not in management

You’d need an audit team that swapped in and out to make sure that troublesome management gets sacked. A competent manager knows not to annoy the staff , knows his job and gets on wit it and invests in staff knowledge, staff should have a working knowledge of what is trying to be achieved, management should be open to new ideas and practical cost savings. If they aren’t all these things trouble ensues.

anyway it’s not going to happen

There’s no way that the government is going to open up its own mines and use money directly for society. Parliament is there to serve the mines , basically we’re fucked , get used to it – it’s only going to get worse – people get used to it.

I crush down crystals of wookiemeisterin and snort them

wookiemeister said:

My last job was a gov owned business , the management were only interested in staying in their job, so you’d not be employing ANY existing government management , you wouldn’t poison the well from the outset- nor would you employ any of them in the future.

Normal workers fine but not in management

You’d need an audit team that swapped in and out to make sure that troublesome management gets sacked. A competent manager knows not to annoy the staff , knows his job and gets on wit it and invests in staff knowledge, staff should have a working knowledge of what is trying to be achieved, management should be open to new ideas and practical cost savings. If they aren’t all these things trouble ensues.

anyway it’s not going to happen

There’s no way that the government is going to open up its own mines and use money directly for society. Parliament is there to serve the mines , basically we’re fucked , get used to it – it’s only going to get worse – people get used to it.

Middle management in government seems to be unneccessary, most sections have a team leader who as the name suggest is the leader of his team, each section runs independently and only needs the manager to sign off on certain documents, usually bills. Ours went away for 3 months and it was business as usual, we just went higher up the food chain for document signing.

wookiemeister said:

I crush down crystals of wookiemeisterin and snort them

Off old boilers buttocks?

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

I crush down crystals of wookiemeisterin and snort them

Off old boilers buttocks?

Old super boilers futtocks

wookiemeister said:

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

State owned coal enterprises have come and gone – the problem is that coal mining is a very unforgiving mistress and the skills and experience to do it well are really only learned over long periods. IMO governments should leave private enterprise to private enterprise and concentrate on development and implementation of good public policy.

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

State owned coal enterprises have come and gone – the problem is that coal mining is a very unforgiving mistress and the skills and experience to do it well are really only learned over long periods. IMO governments should leave private enterprise to private enterprise and concentrate on development and implementation of good public policy.

Yes.

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

State owned coal enterprises have come and gone – the problem is that coal mining is a very unforgiving mistress and the skills and experience to do it well are really only learned over long periods. IMO governments should leave private enterprise to private enterprise and concentrate on development and implementation of good public policy.

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

The_observer said:

While the rate of growth in global coal use has slowed in recent months and coal prices have softened, coal demand remains strong because the fuel is cheap and abundant, deposits are geographically widespread, and the market for it is not affected by OPEC-like entities.

Just to note, OPEC only account for a bit better than one third of global oil production.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

wookiemeister said:

Government mines could pay back the debt that Australia owes , we wouldn’t need any new taxes then

Why is joe hockey so insistent that we pay more taxes instead of the government simply opening it’s own mines and selling coal on the open market to get that money?

State owned coal enterprises have come and gone – the problem is that coal mining is a very unforgiving mistress and the skills and experience to do it well are really only learned over long periods. IMO governments should leave private enterprise to private enterprise and concentrate on development and implementation of good public policy.

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

it’s a rich tapestry…

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

My last job was a gov owned business , the management were only interested in staying in their job, so you’d not be employing ANY existing government management , you wouldn’t poison the well from the outset- nor would you employ any of them in the future.

Normal workers fine but not in management

You’d need an audit team that swapped in and out to make sure that troublesome management gets sacked. A competent manager knows not to annoy the staff , knows his job and gets on wit it and invests in staff knowledge, staff should have a working knowledge of what is trying to be achieved, management should be open to new ideas and practical cost savings. If they aren’t all these things trouble ensues.

anyway it’s not going to happen

There’s no way that the government is going to open up its own mines and use money directly for society. Parliament is there to serve the mines , basically we’re fucked , get used to it – it’s only going to get worse – people get used to it.

Middle management in government seems to be unneccessary, most sections have a team leader who as the name suggest is the leader of his team, each section runs independently and only needs the manager to sign off on certain documents, usually bills. Ours went away for 3 months and it was business as usual, we just went higher up the food chain for document signing.

It seems to me that most people have an opinion on how things should be managed better and while not all management structures or managers are created equal, they are a vital aspect of making business work.

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

State owned coal enterprises have come and gone – the problem is that coal mining is a very unforgiving mistress and the skills and experience to do it well are really only learned over long periods. IMO governments should leave private enterprise to private enterprise and concentrate on development and implementation of good public policy.

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

it’s a rich tapestry…

Inhumanity can be interwoven to make humanity? It is al about economics?

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

State owned coal enterprises have come and gone – the problem is that coal mining is a very unforgiving mistress and the skills and experience to do it well are really only learned over long periods. IMO governments should leave private enterprise to private enterprise and concentrate on development and implementation of good public policy.

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

it’s a rich tapestry…

Maybe now that Abbott is starting to get popular wossisname in charge of the Labs will get off his backside and start articulating how they would be a better bet for the great majority of people in the country.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

My last job was a gov owned business , the management were only interested in staying in their job, so you’d not be employing ANY existing government management , you wouldn’t poison the well from the outset- nor would you employ any of them in the future.

Normal workers fine but not in management

You’d need an audit team that swapped in and out to make sure that troublesome management gets sacked. A competent manager knows not to annoy the staff , knows his job and gets on wit it and invests in staff knowledge, staff should have a working knowledge of what is trying to be achieved, management should be open to new ideas and practical cost savings. If they aren’t all these things trouble ensues.

anyway it’s not going to happen

There’s no way that the government is going to open up its own mines and use money directly for society. Parliament is there to serve the mines , basically we’re fucked , get used to it – it’s only going to get worse – people get used to it.

Middle management in government seems to be unneccessary, most sections have a team leader who as the name suggest is the leader of his team, each section runs independently and only needs the manager to sign off on certain documents, usually bills. Ours went away for 3 months and it was business as usual, we just went higher up the food chain for document signing.

It seems to me that most people have an opinion on how things should be managed better and while not all management structures or managers are created equal, they are a vital aspect of making business work.

They could use some little more education in the market value of humanity.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

it’s a rich tapestry…

Maybe now that Abbott is starting to get popular wossisname in charge of the Labs will get off his backside and start articulating how they would be a better bet for the great majority of people in the country.

He’s no Gough.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

it’s a rich tapestry…

Inhumanity can be interwoven to make humanity? It is al about economics?

obviously not, but there are a great number of perks that come with economic growth – many of which enable us to enact overarching public policy that benefits the underprivileged.

The problem with government owned enterprises is that they become a unionised hot-bed of trouble-makers. Whenever you get an ALP government they’ll let the unions in to get a foothold.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Apart from which, the problem with Joe Hockey is not that he wants to raise taxes too much, it’s that he doesn’t want to raise them enough, resulting in a budget crisis of their own making.

The other problem is that the hypocritical Labour party leadership won’t say that because they want to portray the current government as being harsh on everybody (which they aren’t), rather than just the poor and underprivileged (which they are).

it’s a rich tapestry…

Maybe now that Abbott is starting to get popular wossisname in charge of the Labs will get off his backside and start articulating how they would be a better bet for the great majority of people in the country.

Albo’s the man…

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

it’s a rich tapestry…

Inhumanity can be interwoven to make humanity? It is al about economics?

obviously not, but there are a great number of perks that come with economic growth – many of which enable us to enact overarching public policy that benefits the underprivileged.

We can only hope so.

party_pants said:

The problem with government owned enterprises is that they become a unionised hot-bed of trouble-makers. Whenever you get an ALP government they’ll let the unions in to get a foothold.

Droppy, Mr Pants would like his handle back…

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

My last job was a gov owned business , the management were only interested in staying in their job, so you’d not be employing ANY existing government management , you wouldn’t poison the well from the outset- nor would you employ any of them in the future.

Normal workers fine but not in management

You’d need an audit team that swapped in and out to make sure that troublesome management gets sacked. A competent manager knows not to annoy the staff , knows his job and gets on wit it and invests in staff knowledge, staff should have a working knowledge of what is trying to be achieved, management should be open to new ideas and practical cost savings. If they aren’t all these things trouble ensues.

anyway it’s not going to happen

There’s no way that the government is going to open up its own mines and use money directly for society. Parliament is there to serve the mines , basically we’re fucked , get used to it – it’s only going to get worse – people get used to it.

Middle management in government seems to be unneccessary, most sections have a team leader who as the name suggest is the leader of his team, each section runs independently and only needs the manager to sign off on certain documents, usually bills. Ours went away for 3 months and it was business as usual, we just went higher up the food chain for document signing.

It seems to me that most people have an opinion on how things should be managed better and while not all management structures or managers are created equal, they are a vital aspect of making business work.

So much so that you never need them for the every day running of your section and don’t even notice they are gone when they are on holiday

party_pants said:

The problem with government owned enterprises is that they become a unionised hot-bed of trouble-makers. Whenever you get an ALP government they’ll let the unions in to get a foothold.

It is part of the deal. Without workers, profit makers cannot envisage where to start.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Inhumanity can be interwoven to make humanity? It is al about economics?

obviously not, but there are a great number of perks that come with economic growth – many of which enable us to enact overarching public policy that benefits the underprivileged.

We can only hope so.

I’m not sure I understand?? these things have already happened… we already have things like have medicare, state funded education (primary through tertiary) and social security…

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

obviously not, but there are a great number of perks that come with economic growth – many of which enable us to enact overarching public policy that benefits the underprivileged.

We can only hope so.

I’m not sure I understand?? these things have already happened… we already have things like have medicare, state funded education (primary through tertiary) and social security…

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Middle management in government seems to be unneccessary, most sections have a team leader who as the name suggest is the leader of his team, each section runs independently and only needs the manager to sign off on certain documents, usually bills. Ours went away for 3 months and it was business as usual, we just went higher up the food chain for document signing.

It seems to me that most people have an opinion on how things should be managed better and while not all management structures or managers are created equal, they are a vital aspect of making business work.

So much so that you never need them for the every day running of your section and don’t even notice they are gone when they are on holiday

To be totally honest, the sign of a good management system is one that relies on process, not people. A manager should be able to go away for a month and be confident that the wheels will not just keep turning, but the efficiencies will also remain.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

We can only hope so.

I’m not sure I understand?? these things have already happened… we already have things like have medicare, state funded education (primary through tertiary) and social security…

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

It seems to me that most people have an opinion on how things should be managed better and while not all management structures or managers are created equal, they are a vital aspect of making business work.

So much so that you never need them for the every day running of your section and don’t even notice they are gone when they are on holiday

To be totally honest, the sign of a good management system is one that relies on process, not people. A manager should be able to go away for a month and be confident that the wheels will not just keep turning, but the efficiencies will also remain.

People should be able to be trusted to follow direction and this is why people skills are a significant requirement.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure I understand?? these things have already happened… we already have things like have medicare, state funded education (primary through tertiary) and social security…

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

Whoa, imagine having to do something to not get nothing…

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure I understand?? these things have already happened… we already have things like have medicare, state funded education (primary through tertiary) and social security…

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

Answer acceptable but you are indeed well educated and capable.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

It seems to me that most people have an opinion on how things should be managed better and while not all management structures or managers are created equal, they are a vital aspect of making business work.

So much so that you never need them for the every day running of your section and don’t even notice they are gone when they are on holiday

To be totally honest, the sign of a good management system is one that relies on process, not people. A manager should be able to go away for a month and be confident that the wheels will not just keep turning, but the efficiencies will also remain.

Yes but it seems they aren’t even needed at all, they didn’t put any of the processes in place they just supposedly manage everyone when in fact they don’t discipline people for clear violation of public sector standards.

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

Whoa, imagine having to do something to not get nothing…

IKR… I hate it when the govt asks me to jump through hoops so that they will pay me money… bastards!

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

So much so that you never need them for the every day running of your section and don’t even notice they are gone when they are on holiday

To be totally honest, the sign of a good management system is one that relies on process, not people. A manager should be able to go away for a month and be confident that the wheels will not just keep turning, but the efficiencies will also remain.

Yes but it seems they aren’t even needed at all, they didn’t put any of the processes in place they just supposedly manage everyone when in fact they don’t discipline people for clear violation of public sector standards.

what ‘seems’ and what ‘is’ are often two very different things.

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

Whoa, imagine having to do something to not get nothing…

I’m currently amidst all of anything to do with nkthing in regard to a better use of my time.

diddly-squat said:

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

Whoa, imagine having to do something to not get nothing…

IKR… I hate it when the govt asks me to jump through hoops so that they will pay me money… bastards!

can we chip in a few bucks to get medicare some decent ‘on hold’ music too?

diddly-squat said:

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

Whoa, imagine having to do something to not get nothing…

IKR… I hate it when the govt asks me to jump through hoops so that they will pay me money… bastards!

Barstewards .. fixed.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, the sign of a good management system is one that relies on process, not people. A manager should be able to go away for a month and be confident that the wheels will not just keep turning, but the efficiencies will also remain.

Yes but it seems they aren’t even needed at all, they didn’t put any of the processes in place they just supposedly manage everyone when in fact they don’t discipline people for clear violation of public sector standards.

what ‘seems’ and what ‘is’ are often two very different things.

An education can only be gained.

stumpy_seahorse said:

diddly-squat said:

poikilotherm said:

Whoa, imagine having to do something to not get nothing…

IKR… I hate it when the govt asks me to jump through hoops so that they will pay me money… bastards!

can we chip in a few bucks to get medicare some decent ‘on hold’ music too?

+1

My experience from QLD is that almost without exception management is brainless unless its their own money on the line – businesses where it is managements money on the line seem to work reasonably well, money saving measures are implemented quickly.

As for unions in these government mines? Unions are nice in theory but they do seen to attract the parasites of the world, would be managers that couldn’t get their nose into the management trough. A well run work place doesn’t need unions if its run well – I try not to use the word “ management “ for any well running process – it’s be one a dirty word that has come to represent the worse excesses of human beings.

At the powerstation there was one oily little grub that helped someone out the door in two hours when they mentioned safety breaches and then wouldn’t name names , he was the union rep who signed himself in at 4am to 10pm every day – he must have been raking it in – he was being paid off to keep people quiet. Previous experience with unions is that they are a parasite that works for themselves and management – the workers provide a host, when they destroy the host they jump to another host stupid enough to accommodate them

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

I’m not sure I understand?? these things have already happened… we already have things like have medicare, state funded education (primary through tertiary) and social security…

Have you ev tried to fillout that paperwork?

I have been on austudy and the dole, received govt payments for things like childcare and immunisation, one of my children is enrolled in public school and I’ve recently made large number of medicare claims.

I have been giving the public health system a bit of a flogging as well. Thank you taxpayers.

Q 24 are there any reasons that prevent you and/or your partner from using the property to produce an income?

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

To be totally honest, the sign of a good management system is one that relies on process, not people. A manager should be able to go away for a month and be confident that the wheels will not just keep turning, but the efficiencies will also remain.

Yes but it seems they aren’t even needed at all, they didn’t put any of the processes in place they just supposedly manage everyone when in fact they don’t discipline people for clear violation of public sector standards.

what ‘seems’ and what ‘is’ are often two very different things.

Perhaps but the public service has many useless positions that aren’t needed but won’t get rid of them due to vested interests and politics. We have two people who get paid $80000 a year minimum and have nothing to do all day and this isn’t me exaggerating either, one watches movies and the other is suspended with pay for illegal access of our computer system this was back in March. Should something like this be allowed or is it a waste of money best spent/wasted elsewhere

roughbarked said:

Q 24 are there any reasons that prevent you and/or your partner from using the property to produce an income?

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Yes but it seems they aren’t even needed at all, they didn’t put any of the processes in place they just supposedly manage everyone when in fact they don’t discipline people for clear violation of public sector standards.

what ‘seems’ and what ‘is’ are often two very different things.

Perhaps but the public service has many useless positions that aren’t needed but won’t get rid of them due to vested interests and politics. We have two people who get paid $80000 a year minimum and have nothing to do all day and this isn’t me exaggerating either, one watches movies and the other is suspended with pay for illegal access of our computer system this was back in March. Should something like this be allowed or is it a waste of money best spent/wasted elsewhere

I doe todmit hat those who leech off my misfortune arendeed doing teir job to the best of their ability.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Q 24 are there any reasons that prevent you and/or your partner from using the property to produce an income?

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Q 24 are there any reasons that prevent you and/or your partner from using the property to produce an income?

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

And at the same time, it is. I’m in full comprehension of the facts and so too are they. For I’ve never lied when filling in forms.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Q 24 are there any reasons that prevent you and/or your partner from using the property to produce an income?

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

Of course it is thier business, how else are they going to assess need? Maybe if you feel so strongly you should refuse gubmint money?

AwesomeO said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

Of course it is thier business, how else are they going to assess need? Maybe if you feel so strongly you should refuse gubmint money?

It is what i have done, up to this point.
Suddenly, i find myself in a position that is untenable without application.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

Q 24 are there any reasons that prevent you and/or your partner from using the property to produce an income?

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

I disagree… I think that if you are trying to access public funds through some form of social security payment then nature of your income and our assets is most certainly “the business” of the government.

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

I disagree… I think that if you are trying to access public funds through some form of social security payment then nature of your income and our assets is most certainly “the business” of the government.

+1

I can’t get paid by the government due to income and assets testing and I fully agree with the reasons

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

seems a reasonable question…

would you prefer that income derived from property not be a part of a full income test?

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

I disagree… I think that if you are trying to access public funds through some form of social security payment then nature of your income and our assets is most certainly “the business” of the government.

Missing the point is probably due to lacko explanatory detail.

Why do i want to tell thgovnment that though i’ve paid my taxes, i have never needed their assistance. Nor
Indeed how i have run my country better than they do theirs

stumpy_seahorse said:

diddly-squat said:

roughbarked said:

That wasn’t my point. Income is relevant to a lot of personal detail that indeed effects economy but it is none of their fucking business

I disagree… I think that if you are trying to access public funds through some form of social security payment then nature of your income and our assets is most certainly “the business” of the government.

+1

I can’t get paid by the government due to income and assets testing and I fully agree with the reasons

I’ve never complained.

Um, I think that if you seriously believe your income is no business of the govt’s then you should probably choose another country. Income taxation remains a major source of revenue for most governments.

dv said:

Um, I think that if you seriously believe your income is no business of the govt’s then you should probably choose another country. Income taxation remains a major source of revenue for most governments.

I can assure you that though it is income, it is entirely insignificant.

> “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

Well, I certainly agree with that. There’s enough coal to feed the starving people of the world for thousands of years. Coal is just carbon with a little hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur mixed in, just like humanity.

mollwollfumble said:

> “Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world.”

Well, I certainly agree with that. There’s enough coal to feed the starving people of the world for thousands of years. Coal is just carbon with a little hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur mixed in, just like humanity.

you do realize that people don’t actually eat coal… right?

People with pica might.

Besides burning coal can we use it for anything else?

Cymek said:

Besides burning coal can we use it for anything else?

coal is used for a variety of purposes

• thermal power generation
• steel making
• creation of syn-fuels (coal-to-liquids)
• production of activated carbon filters
• production of carbon fiber products

Cymek said:

Besides burning coal can we use it for anything else?

Steel making would have to be one of the big-ticket items.

I only eat free range coal that has been humanely killed.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

Besides burning coal can we use it for anything else?

Steel making would have to be one of the big-ticket items.

So in reality Australia could still have a coal mining industry just on a smaller scale if the world does away with burning it for power generation

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

Besides burning coal can we use it for anything else?

Steel making would have to be one of the big-ticket items.

So in reality Australia could still have a coal mining industry just on a smaller scale if the world does away with burning it for power generation

If we still needed to make steel, yes. But I believe the type of coal used for steel-making is different to that used for burning in power stations. There was a forumer familiar with the coal industry that used to post here who knows more about it.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Steel making would have to be one of the big-ticket items.

So in reality Australia could still have a coal mining industry just on a smaller scale if the world does away with burning it for power generation

There was a forumer familiar with the coal industry that used to post here who knows more about it.

lol

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

Besides burning coal can we use it for anything else?

Steel making would have to be one of the big-ticket items.

So in reality Australia could still have a coal mining industry just on a smaller scale if the world does away with burning it for power generation

two thirds of the 300Mt tonnes of coal that Australia currently exports is destined for steel making markets.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

Steel making would have to be one of the big-ticket items.

So in reality Australia could still have a coal mining industry just on a smaller scale if the world does away with burning it for power generation

If we still needed to make steel, yes. But I believe the type of coal used for steel-making is different to that used for burning in power stations. There was a forumer familiar with the coal industry that used to post here who knows more about it.

Coal that is used for steel making generally has properties that support the formation and plastic properties of the cake bed in the blast furnace (that is it tends to swell as it heats); this coal also generally has a very high energy value and a very low ash content.

Thermal coals tend to have a high, to moderate, energy and ash contents (although some very low energy content coal are used to generate power – brown coals) and have very little swell.

Anthracites are used for the more high end products like activated carboin filters and the like as they have an extraordinarily high native carbon content.

That’s all well and good but I’ll wait for the expert familiar with the coal industry.

MartinB said:

That’s all well and good but I’ll wait for the expert familiar with the coal industry.

Yea, agreed, diddly knows squat about coal.

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

what, not a corporate subsidy that would be paid to polluters so as to reward them for poor practice?

poikilotherm said:

MartinB said:

That’s all well and good but I’ll wait for the expert familiar with the coal industry.

Yea, agreed, diddly knows squat about coal.

8P

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

what, not a corporate subsidy that would be paid to polluters so as to reward them for poor practice?

Only a lefty socialist central control loving government would dream of such a policy, I’m sure.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

what, not a corporate subsidy that would be paid to polluters so as to reward them for poor practice?

Only a lefty socialist central control loving government would dream of such a policy, I’m sure.

big government pinkos

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

future costs?

based on what?

starting just with climate sensitivity -

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 1.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 4.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 0.5C ?

what about the costs of not using the presently best fuel we have for generating electricity?

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

future costs?

based on what?

starting just with climate sensitivity -

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 1.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 4.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 0.5C ?

what about the costs of not using the presently best fuel we have for generating electricity?

that’s the beauty of an ETS, as it allows the market to set the price through demand – it doesn’t need to make any assumptions about exactly what will happen in the future or when…

of course if you prefer we could continue to use fossil fuels but bank the difference between the cost of using coal with, and without, an ETS mechanism in the hope that this money will somehow, in the future, enable us to buy our way out of trouble.

The problem with the second option is that relies on action in the future which may, or may not, even be technically feasible… which from a risk management standpoint is a pretty stupid thing to do…

What did our descendants ever do for us? I say let them carry the can for once.

This world is not ours, it belongs to future generations. But then as soon as they’re born, it’s not theirs either, it belongs to future generations. No wonder no-one wants to take responsibility.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’d say what we need is a market based pricing system on CO2 emissions, then people can continue to use coal when it is economic to do so, after including the future costs associated with CO2 emissions.

future costs?

based on what?

starting just with climate sensitivity -

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 1.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 4.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 0.5C ?

what about the costs of not using the presently best fuel we have for generating electricity?

that’s the beauty of an ETS, as it allows the market to set the price through demand – it doesn’t need to make any assumptions about exactly what will happen in the future or when…

of course if you prefer we could continue to use fossil fuels but bank the difference between the cost of using coal with, and without, an ETS mechanism in the hope that this money will somehow, in the future, enable us to buy our way out of trouble.

The problem with the second option is that relies on action in the future which may, or may not, even be technically feasible… which from a risk management standpoint is a pretty stupid thing to do…

an ETS is designed to reduce the amount of emissions a plant etc can emit over time. It is not a money making venture that can be taped into in the furure like some insurance policy.

Bubblecar said:

This world is not ours, it belongs to future generations. But then as soon as they’re born, it’s not theirs either, it belongs to future generations. No wonder no-one wants to take responsibility.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. I’m here. They’re not.

Would we be better off burning peat?

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

future costs?

based on what?

starting just with climate sensitivity -

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 1.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 4.5C ?

what will the presumed cost be if sensitivity is 2 x co2 = 0.5C ?

what about the costs of not using the presently best fuel we have for generating electricity?

that’s the beauty of an ETS, as it allows the market to set the price through demand – it doesn’t need to make any assumptions about exactly what will happen in the future or when…

of course if you prefer we could continue to use fossil fuels but bank the difference between the cost of using coal with, and without, an ETS mechanism in the hope that this money will somehow, in the future, enable us to buy our way out of trouble.

The problem with the second option is that relies on action in the future which may, or may not, even be technically feasible… which from a risk management standpoint is a pretty stupid thing to do…

an ETS is designed to reduce the amount of emissions a plant etc can emit over time. It is not a money making venture that can be taped into in the furure like some insurance policy.

Emission trading will soon degenerate into a stock exchange futures market with no co-relation to the actual emissions.

Peak Warming Man said:

Would we be better off burning peat?

What did poor Skeptic Pete ever do to deserve that?

dv said:

What did our descendants ever do for us? I say let them carry the can for once.

I noted today while reading wiki – The Cretaceous, a geologic period and system from circa 145 ± 4 to 66 million years (Ma) ago,
that co2 mean was 1700 ppm… 6 x pre-industrial levels (although I have read papers that suggest it was much much higher than that, > 4700 ppm).

the global temperature was 4 C higher.

that indicates a climate sensitivity of only 0.67 C for a doubling of co2, which is in line with many recent estimates of ECS.

Peak Warming Man said:

Would we be better off burning peat?

Poor old Peat, gets to take the blame for why his boat won’t float

The_observer said:

dv said:

What did our descendants ever do for us? I say let them carry the can for once.

I noted today while reading wiki – The Cretaceous, a geologic period and system from circa 145 ± 4 to 66 million years (Ma) ago,
that co2 mean was 1700 ppm… 6 x pre-industrial levels (although I have read papers that suggest it was much much higher than that, > 4700 ppm).

the global temperature was 4 C higher.

that indicates a climate sensitivity of only 0.67 C for a doubling of co2, which is in line with many recent estimates of ECS.

However, it is different place in this age.

However, it is different place in this age.

yes and how long did the world have to adapt to this warming…150 years or a lot more?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

What did our descendants ever do for us? I say let them carry the can for once.

I noted today while reading wiki – The Cretaceous, a geologic period and system from circa 145 ± 4 to 66 million years (Ma) ago,
that co2 mean was 1700 ppm… 6 x pre-industrial levels (although I have read papers that suggest it was much much higher than that, > 4700 ppm).

the global temperature was 4 C higher.

that indicates a climate sensitivity of only 0.67 C for a doubling of co2, which is in line with many recent estimates of ECS.

However, it is different place in this age.

What sort of margin for error is their for something that occurred 145 ± 4 to 66 million years (Ma) ago,

All the two steps forward, one step backwards in regards to climate change policy would be costly, implement something repeal it

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

What did our descendants ever do for us? I say let them carry the can for once.

I noted today while reading wiki – The Cretaceous, a geologic period and system from circa 145 ± 4 to 66 million years (Ma) ago,
that co2 mean was 1700 ppm… 6 x pre-industrial levels (although I have read papers that suggest it was much much higher than that, > 4700 ppm).

the global temperature was 4 C higher.

that indicates a climate sensitivity of only 0.67 C for a doubling of co2, which is in line with many recent estimates of ECS.

However, it is different place in this age.

ocean circulation would have been different but atmospheric physics in relation to co2 would be no different

I believe the children are our future

Dropbear said:

I believe the children are our future

I believe the children are our organ banks, I tell mine that all the time

Cymek said:

Dropbear said:

I believe the children are our future

I believe the children are our organ banks, I tell mine that all the time

Yeh but you try and play the organ and suddenly there’s sirens and registers and ACA film crews

I don’t know why “The_observer” is responding to something I have posted here, but I have no intention of entering into a discussion with him (or her).

If anyone else has any comments or questions, I will be glad to respond.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why “The_observer” is responding to something I have posted here, but I have no intention of entering into a discussion with him (or her).

If anyone else has any comments or questions, I will be glad to respond.

You know what i think of carbon. No question.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why “The_observer” is responding to something I have posted here, but I have no intention of entering into a discussion with him (or her).

If anyone else has any comments or questions, I will be glad to respond.

You know what i think of carbon. No question.

Actually I don’t know what you think of carbon.

I’m not sure that it makes sense to have a single thought about carbon, since its properties are so different, depending on the context and environment.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why “The_observer” is responding to something I have posted here, but I have no intention of entering into a discussion with him (or her).

If anyone else has any comments or questions, I will be glad to respond.

You know what i think of carbon. No question.

Actually I don’t know what you think of carbon.

I’m not sure that it makes sense to have a single thought about carbon, since its properties are so different, depending on the context and environment.

Diamond is better than coal ;)

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why “The_observer” is responding to something I have posted here, but I have no intention of entering into a discussion with him (or her).

If anyone else has any comments or questions, I will be glad to respond.

Yes, the question I asked & comments I made would be very difficult for you to confront & answer truthfully rd.

Best for you to continue on ignoring me by hiding behind your fake outrage.

grow up

Panicked, ill-thought-through responses to the threat of climate change could hurt more people than they sav.

We need to realise that the world will not come off fossil fuels for many decades.
Globally, we get a minuscule 0.3pc of our energy from solar and wind.
According to the International Energy Agency, even with a wildly optimistic scenario,
we will get just 3.5pc of our energy from solar and wind in 2035, while paying almost $100 billion in annual subsidies.

Today, the world gets 82pc of its energy from fossil fuels, in 21 years it will still be more than 79pc.

The simple reason is that cheap and abundant energy is what powers economic growth.
And for now, that means four fifths from fossil fuel, and much of the rest from water and nuclear.

As the poor half of our world is reaching for a similar development to that of China,
they will also want much, much more power, most of it powered by coal. Even the
climate-worried World Bank president accepts that “there’s never been a country
that has developed with intermittent power.”

Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems.
While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years,
4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving,
and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation.

When the UN asked 5 million people for their top priorities the answers were better education
and health care, less corruption, more jobs and affordable food.
They placed global warming at the very last spot, as priority number 17.

Bjorn Lomborg
03 Nov 2014

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/11205420/Climate-change-is-a-problem.-But-our-attempts-to-fix-it-could-be-worse-than-useless.html

Annual federal climate spending in the US alone increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. Global warming spending in 2013 was $22.2 billion and $21.4 billion this year.

Globally a billion dollars a day is spent on global warming – (figures from the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) report 2012)

So it all stimulates the economy.

The_observer said:

Panicked, ill-thought-through responses to the threat of climate change could hurt more people than they sav.

We need to realise that the world will not come off fossil fuels for many decades.
Globally, we get a minuscule 0.3pc of our energy from solar and wind.
According to the International Energy Agency, even with a wildly optimistic scenario,
we will get just 3.5pc of our energy from solar and wind in 2035, while paying almost $100 billion in annual subsidies.

Today, the world gets 82pc of its energy from fossil fuels, in 21 years it will still be more than 79pc.

The simple reason is that cheap and abundant energy is what powers economic growth.
And for now, that means four fifths from fossil fuel, and much of the rest from water and nuclear.

As the poor half of our world is reaching for a similar development to that of China,
they will also want much, much more power, most of it powered by coal. Even the
climate-worried World Bank president accepts that “there’s never been a country
that has developed with intermittent power.”

Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems.
While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years,
4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving,
and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation.

When the UN asked 5 million people for their top priorities the answers were better education
and health care, less corruption, more jobs and affordable food.
They placed global warming at the very last spot, as priority number 17.

Bjorn Lomborg
03 Nov 2014

Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies.

The fact is that through well executed economic policy it’s possible to use the commercial efficiencies of one part of the economy to help fund growth in other parts, while still benefiting the whole.

You can ignore the facts all you like but moving towards more sustainable energy sources makes good economic sense.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

Panicked, ill-thought-through responses to the threat of climate change could hurt more people than they sav.

We need to realise that the world will not come off fossil fuels for many decades.
Globally, we get a minuscule 0.3pc of our energy from solar and wind.
According to the International Energy Agency, even with a wildly optimistic scenario,
we will get just 3.5pc of our energy from solar and wind in 2035, while paying almost $100 billion in annual subsidies.

Today, the world gets 82pc of its energy from fossil fuels, in 21 years it will still be more than 79pc.

The simple reason is that cheap and abundant energy is what powers economic growth.
And for now, that means four fifths from fossil fuel, and much of the rest from water and nuclear.

As the poor half of our world is reaching for a similar development to that of China,
they will also want much, much more power, most of it powered by coal. Even the
climate-worried World Bank president accepts that “there’s never been a country
that has developed with intermittent power.”

Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems.
While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years,
4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving,
and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation.

When the UN asked 5 million people for their top priorities the answers were better education
and health care, less corruption, more jobs and affordable food.
They placed global warming at the very last spot, as priority number 17.

Bjorn Lomborg
03 Nov 2014

Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies.

The fact is that through well executed economic policy it’s possible to use the commercial efficiencies of one part of the economy to help fund growth in other parts, while still benefiting the whole.

You can ignore the facts all you like but moving towards more sustainable energy sources makes good economic sense.

His masters the coal industry will put him in a pain amplifier if he fails

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time growing the economy stronger. The carbon _intensity _ (carbon emissions per dollar of real GDP) of the Australian economy reduced by 7.2% in 2013.

http://takvera.blogspot.sg/2014/09/pwc-report-world-still-on-track-for.html

Is coal

Is good

dv said:

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time growing the economy stronger. The carbon _intensity _ (carbon emissions per dollar of real GDP) of the Australian economy reduced by 7.2% in 2013.

http://takvera.blogspot.sg/2014/09/pwc-report-world-still-on-track-for.html

lucky the two fossil fuel industry stooges here are doing their part…

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time growing the economy stronger. The carbon _intensity _ (carbon emissions per dollar of real GDP) of the Australian economy reduced by 7.2% in 2013.

http://takvera.blogspot.sg/2014/09/pwc-report-world-still-on-track-for.html

lucky the two fossil fuel industry stooges here are doing their part…

Weird, isn’t it.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time growing the economy stronger. The carbon _intensity _ (carbon emissions per dollar of real GDP) of the Australian economy reduced by 7.2% in 2013.

http://takvera.blogspot.sg/2014/09/pwc-report-world-still-on-track-for.html

lucky the two fossil fuel industry stooges here are doing their part…

Weird, isn’t it.

IKR… funny what insight a knowledge of energy markets brings…

dv said:

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time growing the economy stronger. The carbon _intensity _ (carbon emissions per dollar of real GDP) of the Australian economy reduced by 7.2% in 2013.

http://takvera.blogspot.sg/2014/09/pwc-report-world-still-on-track-for.html

“while at the same time growing the economy stronger’ in 2013 ?

neither does this graph (for australia’s economic growth from the sydney morning herald) support the claim that the economy grew stronger in 2013.

GDP ended flat for the calendar year & below the beginning of the financial year starting july 2012

That looks like a graph of GDP growth not one of GDP.

The_observer said:

neither does this graph (for australia’s economic growth from the sydney morning herald) support the claim that the economy grew stronger in 2013.

GDP ended flat for the calendar year & below the beginning of the financial year starting july 2012

That graph shows strong growth in 2013 and indeed shows there has been significant growth every year.

Do you even know how to read a graph?

truly the axis of not very evil.

dv said:

The_observer said:

neither does this graph (for australia’s economic growth from the sydney morning herald) support the claim that the economy grew stronger in 2013.

GDP ended flat for the calendar year & below the beginning of the financial year starting july 2012

That graph shows strong growth in 2013 and indeed shows there has been significant growth every year.

Do you even know how to read a graph?

yeh, the red line goes up from the 2nd quarter 2013, a low since the 2nd quarter 2011

look at the growth last 1/4 2010 & last 3/4 2012,,, thats growth

The_observer said:

look at the growth last 1/4 2010 & last 3/4 2012,,, thats growth

well the reality is it’s ALL growth

hmmmm lock in B

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

look at the growth last 1/4 2010 & last 3/4 2012,,, thats growth

well the reality is it’s ALL growth

‘ere, slow down, poindexter.

Economy has turned a corner.
March 7, 2014 by John Ryan 1 Comment
(Source: Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald – March 5, 2014)

Reserve Bank of Australia member John Edwards says the latest GDP data shows Australia’s economy had shaken off the threat of a serious downturn and appears to have turned a corner.

Mr Edwards believes the upbeat growth figures are an encouraging sign that Australia is successfully shifting from being driven by mining investment to other sources of demand, such as home construction.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of statistics showed the Australian Economy expanded faster than expected in the December quarter, but remains well below the long term trend.

The data showed GDP in the three months to the end of December grew a seasonally adjusted 0.8 per cent. For the 12 months, GDP grew at 2.8 per cent, but still below the growth trend forecast of 3.25 per cent.

Australia’s economic growth

GDP growth in Australia over the past five years (year-on-year rate, seasonally adjusted).

(Source Australian Bureau of Statistics)

ANZ senior economist, Felicity Emmett said, “the early signs are that the economy is picking up,

housing investment is set to pick up strongly this year, household consumption spending looks to be trading higher and the outlook for non-mining investment look to be improving.”

Commonwealth Bank economist, Diana Mousina said the data showed “a stronger indication that the mining to non mining growth transition is proceeding.”

Meanwhile, Australia’s largest trading partner, China said it would maintain a 7.5 per cent growth target for this year. China has held the same target over the past two year, with growth in the world’s second largest economy seen as supportive for Australia

http://www.transportfinance.com.au/2014/03/economy-has-turned-a-corner/

The_observer said:

Economy has turned a corner.
March 7, 2014 by John Ryan 1 Comment
(Source: Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald – March 5, 2014)

Reserve Bank of Australia member John Edwards says the latest GDP data shows Australia’s economy had shaken off the threat of a serious downturn and appears to have turned a corner.

Mr Edwards believes the upbeat growth figures are an encouraging sign that Australia is successfully shifting from being driven by mining investment to other sources of demand, such as home construction.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of statistics showed the Australian Economy expanded faster than expected in the December quarter, but remains well below the long term trend.

The data showed GDP in the three months to the end of December grew a seasonally adjusted 0.8 per cent. For the 12 months, GDP grew at 2.8 per cent, but still below the growth trend forecast of 3.25 per cent.

Australia’s economic growth

GDP growth in Australia over the past five years (year-on-year rate, seasonally adjusted).

(Source Australian Bureau of Statistics)

ANZ senior economist, Felicity Emmett said, “the early signs are that the economy is picking up,

housing investment is set to pick up strongly this year, household consumption spending looks to be trading higher and the outlook for non-mining investment look to be improving.”

Commonwealth Bank economist, Diana Mousina said the data showed “a stronger indication that the mining to non mining growth transition is proceeding.”

Meanwhile, Australia’s largest trading partner, China said it would maintain a 7.5 per cent growth target for this year. China has held the same target over the past two year, with growth in the world’s second largest economy seen as supportive for Australia

http://www.transportfinance.com.au/2014/03/economy-has-turned-a-corner/

And yet the $A is at a low compared to the $US.

I wonder if observer’s syndrome (inability to read charts and tables) is a major factor in the denialist phenomenon.

dv said:

I wonder if observer’s syndrome (inability to read charts and tables) is a major factor in the denialist phenomenon.

He reads the big picture, not the axes. And he knows which way to turn it.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

I wonder if observer’s syndrome (inability to read charts and tables) is a major factor in the denialist phenomenon.

He reads the big picture, not the axes. And he knows which way to turn it.

Insufficient use of the Why axis?

Tamb said:

The_observer said:

Economy has turned a corner.
March 7, 2014 by John Ryan 1 Comment
(Source: Australian Financial Review, Sydney Morning Herald – March 5, 2014)

Reserve Bank of Australia member John Edwards says the latest GDP data shows Australia’s economy had shaken off the threat of a serious downturn and appears to have turned a corner.

Mr Edwards believes the upbeat growth figures are an encouraging sign that Australia is successfully shifting from being driven by mining investment to other sources of demand, such as home construction.

Figures from the Australian Bureau of statistics showed the Australian Economy expanded faster than expected in the December quarter, but remains well below the long term trend.

The data showed GDP in the three months to the end of December grew a seasonally adjusted 0.8 per cent. For the 12 months, GDP grew at 2.8 per cent, but still below the growth trend forecast of 3.25 per cent.

Australia’s economic growth

GDP growth in Australia over the past five years (year-on-year rate, seasonally adjusted).

(Source Australian Bureau of Statistics)

ANZ senior economist, Felicity Emmett said, “the early signs are that the economy is picking up,

housing investment is set to pick up strongly this year, household consumption spending looks to be trading higher and the outlook for non-mining investment look to be improving.”

Commonwealth Bank economist, Diana Mousina said the data showed “a stronger indication that the mining to non mining growth transition is proceeding.”

Meanwhile, Australia’s largest trading partner, China said it would maintain a 7.5 per cent growth target for this year. China has held the same target over the past two year, with growth in the world’s second largest economy seen as supportive for Australia

http://www.transportfinance.com.au/2014/03/economy-has-turned-a-corner/

And yet the $A is at a low compared to the $US.

largely as a result of reduced demand for things that are ‘made in Australia’

dv said:

I wonder if observer’s syndrome (inability to read charts and tables) is a major factor in the denialist phenomenon.

what is it i deny dv?

how to read a graph?

dv said:

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time >>>growing the economy stronger. <<<<

what’s your evidence to support that statement ?

“Figures from the Australian Bureau of statistics showed the Australian Economy expanded faster than expected in the December quarter, but remains well below the long term trend.”

The_observer said:

dv said:

I wonder if observer’s syndrome (inability to read charts and tables) is a major factor in the denialist phenomenon.

what is it i deny dv?

The_observer said:

dv said:

“Yet evidence suggests that many countries have been able to transition to less carbon intensive power generation and still grow their economies. “

Indeed, Australia reduced its GHG emissions in the 2013 while at the same time >>>growing the economy stronger. <<<<

what’s your evidence to support that statement ?

“Figures from the Australian Bureau of statistics showed the Australian Economy expanded faster than expected in the December quarter, but remains well below the long term trend.”

7 out of 10 people know statistics are made up

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

I wonder if observer’s syndrome (inability to read charts and tables) is a major factor in the denialist phenomenon.

what is it i deny dv?

You know Jebus

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

what is it i deny dv?

You know Jebus

no I don’t.

dv made the statement & apparently he is incapable of explaining what he means by it.

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

You know Jebus

no I don’t.

dv made the statement & apparently he is incapable of explaining what he means by it.

I will try and put it in simple terms.

The graph you linked to showing growth showed positive growth in every quarter. Just because the graph may have tilted down does not mean there was no growth in that quarter, just that the growth was less than the previous quarter.

sibeen said:

The_observer said:

Cymek said:

You know Jebus

no I don’t.

dv made the statement & apparently he is incapable of explaining what he means by it.

I will try and put it in simple terms.

no, I’m refering to the bit – denialist phenomenon

do you feel safer arguing about slights than addressing the science?

ChrispenEvan said:

do you feel safer arguing about slights than addressing the science?

not at all & I have addressed the science. I have stated clearly what I think in post ID: 623840

try reading that instead of talking shite

The_observer said:

sibeen said:

The_observer said:

no I don’t.

dv made the statement & apparently he is incapable of explaining what he means by it.

I will try and put it in simple terms.

no, I’m refering to the bit – denialist phenomenon

Denialist
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

Phenomenon
a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

sibeen said:

I will try and put it in simple terms.

no, I’m refering to the bit – denialist phenomenon

Denialist
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

Phenomenon
a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

you couldn’t articulate what I believe

With precisely zero intention of being drawn further, I think it’s fair to say that observer denies the truth of the proposition that the conventional science of a subject is highly likely to be accurate about subjects where there is broad agreement between most contributors to the literature coming from a range of different sub-fields within the discipline.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

no, I’m refering to the bit – denialist phenomenon

Denialist
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.

Phenomenon
a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

you couldn’t articulate what I believe

Very true and I would not try.

MartinB said:

With precisely zero intention of being drawn further, I think it’s fair to say that observer denies the truth of the proposition that the conventional science of a subject is highly likely to be accurate about subjects where there is broad agreement between most contributors to the literature coming from a range of different sub-fields within the discipline.

IPCC figure for sensitivity – 1.5C – 4.5C

I believe it is a least at the lower end.

fixed