Fear of nuclear energy runs deep but it may be the most efficient and clean energy source we have, albeit with complications.

The vast majority of the carbon and greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere are generated by our need for energy, prompting the late Prof Sir David MacKay to observe that “the climate problem is mostly an energy problem”. Clearly then, we must reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and it is likely that nuclear power will play a substantial role in this endeavour. Yet despite the pressing nature of the problem, there are few topics as consistently contentious as the one of nuclear power, and the long history of opposition to it cannot be ignored.

Fears about nuclear energy run deep: the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remains a towering linchpin in anti-nuclear narratives, presented as an irrefutable case that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. These claims are so profoundly entrenched that it is almost accepted as common knowledge that the Chernobyl disaster killed thousands.

Yet, as I’ve written here before, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny and persist in the face of report after report to the contrary. Years of subsequent investigation place the death toll of the disaster at approximately 43 people, with deleterious health effects failing to materialise at any appreciable rate. That this information is surprising to many is indicative of quite how polarised the discussion on such a vital topic has been.

Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked, but predictably strikes fear into the public conscience, encouraging panic in place of reason.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jun/28/climate-change-energy-proble

Many of the issues with early nuclear was the breeder reactors which were required to service the military requirements and remember they followed very quickly from the ability to split the atom, so relatively primitive. So far nuclear energy has been hugely expensive when you include decommissioning and the still to be fixed problems of nuclear waste.

I don’t think these problems are insurmountable with future reactor designs.

The_observer said:

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jun/28/climate-change-energy-proble

full URL:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jun/28/climate-change-energy-problem-lets-talk-honestly-about-nuclear

The first few paragraphs of that article seem to assume man made climate change as fact:

Of all the hazards facing humankind, climate change is the single greatest threat we have ever faced. In a few short decades, we have altered the climate more than we ever thought possible and now, in the midst of the greatest heatwave recorded in decades in the hottest year on record, we are finally beginning to countenance the scale of problem before us.

The poorest of the poor have been the first to suffer – droughts and food shortages are already imperilling the lives of countless millions, with ensuing conflicts threatening even more. We have rendered some areas uninhabitable, and the number of climate refugees will only increase. Even we privileged folk in the western world are no longer immune, with the dangers steadily encroaching.

The vast majority of the carbon and greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere are generated by our need for energy, prompting the late Prof Sir David MacKay to observe that “the climate problem is mostly an energy problem”. Clearly then, we must reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and it is likely that nuclear power will play a substantial role in this endeavour. Yet despite the pressing nature of the problem, there are few topics as consistently contentious as the one of nuclear power, and the long history of opposition to it cannot be ignored.

The_observer said:

Fear of nuclear energy runs deep but it may be the most efficient and clean energy source we have, albeit with complications.

The vast majority of the carbon and greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere are generated by our need for energy, prompting the late Prof Sir David MacKay to observe that “the climate problem is mostly an energy problem”. Clearly then, we must reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and it is likely that nuclear power will play a substantial role in this endeavour. Yet despite the pressing nature of the problem, there are few topics as consistently contentious as the one of nuclear power, and the long history of opposition to it cannot be ignored.

Fears about nuclear energy run deep: the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remains a towering linchpin in anti-nuclear narratives, presented as an irrefutable case that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. These claims are so profoundly entrenched that it is almost accepted as common knowledge that the Chernobyl disaster killed thousands.

Yet, as I’ve written here before, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny and persist in the face of report after report to the contrary. Years of subsequent investigation place the death toll of the disaster at approximately 43 people, with deleterious health effects failing to materialise at any appreciable rate. That this information is surprising to many is indicative of quite how polarised the discussion on such a vital topic has been.

Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked, but predictably strikes fear into the public conscience, encouraging panic in place of reason.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jun/28/climate-change-energy-proble

The number of human deaths is not a significant issue and might be relatively small. The real problem apart from the disposal of nuclear waste, is the very long life of the radiation if something goes wrong and the areas of contaminated land that cannot be used.

The thread title…

sarahs mum said:

The thread title…

Oh, I can answer that question.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Fear of nuclear energy runs deep but it may be the most efficient and clean energy source we have, albeit with complications.

The vast majority of the carbon and greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere are generated by our need for energy, prompting the late Prof Sir David MacKay to observe that “the climate problem is mostly an energy problem”. Clearly then, we must reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and it is likely that nuclear power will play a substantial role in this endeavour. Yet despite the pressing nature of the problem, there are few topics as consistently contentious as the one of nuclear power, and the long history of opposition to it cannot be ignored.

Fears about nuclear energy run deep: the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remains a towering linchpin in anti-nuclear narratives, presented as an irrefutable case that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. These claims are so profoundly entrenched that it is almost accepted as common knowledge that the Chernobyl disaster killed thousands.

Yet, as I’ve written here before, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny and persist in the face of report after report to the contrary. Years of subsequent investigation place the death toll of the disaster at approximately 43 people, with deleterious health effects failing to materialise at any appreciable rate. That this information is surprising to many is indicative of quite how polarised the discussion on such a vital topic has been.

Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked, but predictably strikes fear into the public conscience, encouraging panic in place of reason.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2017/jun/28/climate-change-energy-proble

The number of human deaths is not a significant issue and might be relatively small. The real problem apart from the disposal of nuclear waste, is the very long life of the radiation if something goes wrong and the areas of contaminated land that cannot be used.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
George Monbiot

You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree

sarahs mum said:

The thread title…

Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked, but predictably strikes fear into the public conscience, encouraging panic in place of reason.

sarahs mum said:

The thread title…

The Observer doesn’t realise that Santa is a Greeney and is is keeping count.

You know how the Australian “Motoring Party” is really just a lobby group for 4WD enthusiasts.

Well, the Australia Greens began as just a lobby group for bushwalkers. And, really, it hasn’t changed.

I was visiting Marysville a month ago and the people there hate the greens.

It was the Greens that instituted the policy of no land clearing around houses – one person whose house survived where all his neighbours lost their houses had been fined $35,000 by the Greens for clearing the bush around his house. He is on record as saying that it was the best money he ever spent.

While visiting Marysville, it occurred to me that Australian wildlife should institute a million dollar class action against the Greens for damages. Because the Greens blocked fire hazard reduction, the flames of that fire reached a height of 600 metres. If I wanted to, I could find out exactly how many members of the Green Party died in the Marysville fires.

Also, the Greens lie.

> Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked.

I was a member of an anti-nuclear-war group back in the 1980s, and came into contact with Greenpeace then. At this time I was calculating fallout plumes from atomic bombs, comparing for instance the fallout plume for a 100 kiloton bomb to that from a 1 megaton bomb. This was also the time that I noticed the difference between the long term study on radiation effects in Hiroshima and those in Nagasaki. Those in the Hiroshima report support the contention that low levels of ionising radiation are proportionately more harmful than high levels – ie. a dose of 0.1 rad is significantly more than a tenth as dangerous as a dose of 1 rad. The report from Nagasaki contradicts this. Greenpeace has always gone with the results of the Hiroshima report.

My impressions of active members of Greenpeace was that they were sincere but terrified, unable to tell the difference between a one in ten risk and a one in ten million risk.

I got the feeling later that Greenpeace had been infiltrated by government agents from various countries who had deliberately switched off its previous anti-war stance.

Nuclear fission has an unfortunate history that links it with our violent behaviour. This will always generate fear.

roughbarked said:

Nuclear fission has an unfortunate history that links it with our violent behaviour. This will always generate fear.

Greens. The three I party. Impractical, impotent & ineffectual.

The Greens have held up pretty well in Australia.
They were fairly successful in Germany many years ago but they seem to have faded there.
Little to none representation in the UK or USA or Russia or Patagonia.
I think to make it in politics you need to have some internal ructions, so I think the Greens have made it here and if you can make it here you can make it anywhere.

I dunno but kale is pretty evil.

mollwollfumble said:

I got the feeling later that Greenpeace had been infiltrated by government agents from various countries who had deliberately switched off its previous anti-war stance.

I would say in the 70s just about every peace and missile or airfield protest group in England, Germany and France were bankrolled and infiltrated by the soviets.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

I got the feeling later that Greenpeace had been infiltrated by government agents from various countries who had deliberately switched off its previous anti-war stance.

I would say in the 70s just about every peace and missile or airfield protest group in England, Germany and France were bankrolled and infiltrated by the soviets.

They were infiltrared by socialists, neo marxists, lefties of all persuasions. They are the environmental movement. A common hatred of capitalism, humanity & freedom.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

I got the feeling later that Greenpeace had been infiltrated by government agents from various countries who had deliberately switched off its previous anti-war stance.

I would say in the 70s just about every peace and missile or airfield protest group in England, Germany and France were bankrolled and infiltrated by the soviets.

Explains why the current crop of organised political dipsticks, The Greens, are really communists with an outer thin green shell.

The Greens to me seem to protest because it’s expected and they often don’t seem fully informed on the matter, which seems normal nowadays.

poikilotherm said:

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

I got the feeling later that Greenpeace had been infiltrated by government agents from various countries who had deliberately switched off its previous anti-war stance.

I would say in the 70s just about every peace and missile or airfield protest group in England, Germany and France were bankrolled and infiltrated by the soviets.

Explains why the current crop of organised political dipsticks, The Greens, are really communists with an outer thin green shell.

That’s why they are known as watermelons. Green on the outside, pink on the inside.

I don’t think the Greens are any less wacky with their “policies” than the major parties are.

ChrispenEvan said:

I don’t think the Greens are any less wacky with their “policies” than the major parties are.

Their policies sound reasonable but a little research shows them to be completely impractical.

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I don’t think the Greens are any less wacky with their “policies” than the major parties are.

Their policies sound reasonable but a little research shows them to be completely impractical.

yeah, just like the major parties.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I don’t think the Greens are any less wacky with their “policies” than the major parties are.

Their policies sound reasonable but a little research shows them to be completely impractical.

yeah, just like the major parties.

No. Some of the major parties policy are fairly sound despite being bagged by the other party.

Tamb said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

Their policies sound reasonable but a little research shows them to be completely impractical.

yeah, just like the major parties.

No. Some of the major parties policy are fairly sound despite being bagged by the other party.

yep, and some of the greens policies are sound etc.

• yep, and some of the greens policies are sound etc.

Once, perhaps…

The Greens policy to have a federal ICAC makes a lot of sense. Keep the bastards honest. It’s quite telling that the major parties are quite opposed to a federal ICAC.
NSW Libs recently watered down our ICAC, must be some impressive stuff going on. I wonder what is happening with a lot of the cases that were in the middle of being investigated, involving the libs?

furious said:

• yep, and some of the greens policies are sound etc.

Once, perhaps…

What policies are unsound?

• What policies are unsound?

Its their overarching ideology that is unsound…

furious said:

• What policies are unsound?

Its their overarching ideology that is unsound…

That’s vague, and doesn’t address any specific policies.

So, what is this overarching ideology?

>>>NSW Libs recently watered down our ICAC<<<

& for good reasons. Cuneen & Co were a disgrace.

• That’s vague

That’s politics…

• So, what is this overarching ideology?

You don’t know? And you’re defending them?

ruby said:

furious said:

• yep, and some of the greens policies are sound etc.

Once, perhaps…

What policies are unsound?

None, if your a Marxist & against all forms of cheap reliable energy.

The_observer said:

>>>NSW Libs recently watered down our ICAC<<<

& for good reasons. Cuneen & Co were a disgrace.

There was a whole lot of disgraceful things being cleaned up. Sadly all has gone quiet on that front.

furious said:

• That’s vague

That’s politics…

• So, what is this overarching ideology?

You don’t know? And you’re defending them?

Defending? I’m asking the people who are saying the Greens have bad policies to name the policies they find so bad. It’s an interesting exercise in education about the parties people vote for, or don’t vote for. I’d like to know what policies people dislike.

As for their overarching ideology, I’m interested as to what YOU think that might be, as you posted that you didn’t like it. Just trying to get past the vagueness.

ruby said:

furious said:

• That’s vague

That’s politics…

• So, what is this overarching ideology?

You don’t know? And you’re defending them?

Defending? I’m asking the people who are saying the Greens have bad policies to name the policies they find so bad. It’s an interesting exercise in education about the parties people vote for, or don’t vote for. I’d like to know what policies people dislike.

As for their overarching ideology, I’m interested as to what YOU think that might be, as you posted that you didn’t like it. Just trying to get past the vagueness.

how can you explain the vibe, man?

You have to be careful to differentiate between policies that are bad and wrong to policies that you think are bad and wrong because they come from a different political philosophy or elevate particular values.

ruby said:

furious said:

• That’s vague

That’s politics…

• So, what is this overarching ideology?

You don’t know? And you’re defending them?

Defending? I’m asking the people who are saying the Greens have bad policies to name the policies they find so bad. It’s an interesting exercise in education about the parties people vote for, or don’t vote for. I’d like to know what policies people dislike.

As for their overarching ideology, I’m interested as to what YOU think that might be, as you posted that you didn’t like it. Just trying to get past the vagueness.

Ask not what their policies are.

Ask what would their policies would be if they ever gained power?

The_observer said:

ruby said:

furious said:

• That’s vague

That’s politics…

• So, what is this overarching ideology?

You don’t know? And you’re defending them?

Defending? I’m asking the people who are saying the Greens have bad policies to name the policies they find so bad. It’s an interesting exercise in education about the parties people vote for, or don’t vote for. I’d like to know what policies people dislike.

As for their overarching ideology, I’m interested as to what YOU think that might be, as you posted that you didn’t like it. Just trying to get past the vagueness.

Ask not what their policies are.

Ask what would their policies would be if they ever gained power?

I think it’s a great idea to ask all the people saying they don’t like their policies to be specific about which ones they are. Pop over to their website now and jot them down.

And I really don’t think there is any danger they will gain power.

In some areas my position intersects with the Greens but I feel we are ideologically opposite on some key areas. I also think that they are disingenuous when it comes to some of their policies in relation to primary industries…

• Ask what would their policies would be if they ever gained power?

Yeah…

I can see it in the distance, it’s shimmering water and trees, it’s a green oasis.
Hoorah!! We’re saved.

furious said:

In some areas my position intersects with the Greens but I feel we are ideologically opposite on some key areas. I also think that they are disingenuous when it comes to some of their policies in relation to primary industries…

Thanks furious, getting somewhere now. Which key areas are you ideologically opposed to?

Which policies in relation to primary industries do you think are disingenuous? For myself, I think ending animal cruelty is worthy but unattainable, but being oblivious to the practices of intensive farming while consuming the end product is rather disingenuous. Live export is a pretty crappy business, ask vets who travel on the ships just how crappy it is. How many jobs are lost by simply chucking animals on boats and sending them off, too?

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

ruby said:

The_observer said:

Ask not what their policies are.

Ask what would their policies would be if they ever gained power?

I think it’s a great idea to ask all the people saying they don’t like their policies to be specific about which ones they are. Pop over to their website now and jot them down.

And I really don’t think there is any danger they will gain power.

No thanks, been there before.

I reminise, on the rare occasion, about seeing Bob Brown on the nightly news, for instance, demanding that we stop commercial fishing in australia waters, based on a well & truely debunked paper.

Fake news!

And Bob, blaming a naturally occuring climatic event, not just on man’s emission of that evil CO2, oh no; Bob specifically blamed queensland coal mines, & demanded they be shut down.

More fake news, propaganda, total bullshit, call it what you will?

They are an ideological protest organisation that rely on supposed human caused environmental catastrophies to justify their existence, & have a totalitarian disposition.

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

Temper temper. If you take a better, calmer look, its an article written by a lefty, in a lefty newspaper, pointing out that greenies are sociopathic liars.

sorry if the truth hurts.

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

I was pondering on starting a new thread, with a less trolling title.

Had to laugh when the very next post has gone full on Trump…..

ruby said:

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

I was pondering on starting a new thread, with a less trolling title.

Had to laugh when the very next post has gone full on Trump…..

I really don’t what your getting at with Trump, but you are obviously a sufferer of Trump Derangement syndrome

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

It is a troll thread, it’s the only way The_obs can communicate, if you can call it communicating.

I’m not convinced of the environment part any more, in spite of their name, I think they just use that to get the votes from that part of the population, their main/only goal is socialism, the rest is for appearances, IMO.

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

yes, it is a troll thread. what would you expect?

:-)

@realDonaldTrump: Expected to wash greens before eating them. SAD!

poikilotherm said:

It is a troll thread, it’s the only way The_obs can communicate, if you can call it communicating.

I’m not convinced of the environment part any more, in spite of their name, I think they just use that to get the votes from that part of the population, their main/only goal is socialism, the rest is for appearances, IMO.

Funny that if I wrote your comment above, I’d be called a troll.

In any case, name call all you like. Its standard proceedure around here.

The_observer said:

ruby said:

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

I was pondering on starting a new thread, with a less trolling title.

Had to laugh when the very next post has gone full on Trump…..

I really don’t what your getting at with Trump, but you are obviously a sufferer of Trump Derangement syndrome

what type of trolling is it when the rebut is claiming someone else is mad?

The_observer said:

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

Temper temper. If you take a better, calmer look, its an article written by a lefty, in a lefty newspaper, pointing out that greenies are sociopathic liars.

sorry if the truth hurts.

I thought that Sarahs Mum was taking a better calmer look. I liked it. Australia used to be a country I was proud of, but we seem to be disappearing down the rabbit hole of propaganda and ignorance, and of stupid deals. Our leadership is sadly wanting.

ChrispenEvan said:

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

yes, it is a troll thread. what would you expect?

:-)

No, its a thread that states an opinion, that some here can’t tolerate. So they name call. Your an excellent example. An internet chat room bully. I enjoy you getting upset.
Yes, now I know you’ll deny your upset, but that would be fake news.

The_observer said:

ruby said:

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

I was pondering on starting a new thread, with a less trolling title.

Had to laugh when the very next post has gone full on Trump…..

I really don’t what your getting at with Trump, but you are obviously a sufferer of Trump Derangement syndrome

Oh, I think you know very well what I’m getting at with Trump. As do others.

ruby said:

The_observer said:

sarahs mum said:

How many Greens have been done for corruption and back hand deals? Bankruptcy? Taking helicopters to private parties?
Liars? What like Tony? Or Trump?
I read this thread and I read ugliness. I have to stand back to see that this attack isn’t directed at me (although I reckon it is a troll thread.)

Yes. The Greens have social ideals and want an environment to live in. Shameful shit.
I hate this thread. It is the title I hate. I am happy to have/read the conversation.

Temper temper. If you take a better, calmer look, its an article written by a lefty, in a lefty newspaper, pointing out that greenies are sociopathic liars.

sorry if the truth hurts.

I thought that Sarahs Mum was taking a better calmer look. I liked it. Australia used to be a country I was proud of, but we seem to be disappearing down the rabbit hole of propaganda and ignorance, and of stupid deals. Our leadership is sadly wanting.

Yep, the political class has become a vapid mess of self interest.

The_observer said:

Yes, now I know you’ll deny your upset, but that would be fake news.

Mwahahahhaa

ruby said:

The_observer said:

ruby said:

I was pondering on starting a new thread, with a less trolling title.

Had to laugh when the very next post has gone full on Trump…..

I really don’t what your getting at with Trump, but you are obviously a sufferer of Trump Derangement syndrome

Oh, I think you know very well what I’m getting at with Trump. As do others.

No, I don’t

The_observer said:

ruby said:

The_observer said:

I really don’t what your getting at with Trump, but you are obviously a sufferer of Trump Derangement syndrome

Oh, I think you know very well what I’m getting at with Trump. As do others.

No, I don’t

’Yes, now I know you’ll deny your upset, but that would be fake news.’

Bad spelling, fake news reference. Maybe you ARE Trump!

ruby said:

The_observer said:

ruby said:

Oh, I think you know very well what I’m getting at with Trump. As do others.

No, I don’t

’Yes, now I know you’ll deny your upset, but that would be fake news.’

Bad spelling, fake news reference. Maybe you ARE Trump!

Are you refering to CNN being caught out reporting fake news regarding Russian links to Trumpy?

Yeh, the fake news CNN have been caught out big time. Trumpy was right. The lefty US media will lie to bring Trump down.

How about the fake news in regards to nobody turning up for the inorguration

Looks like a fair crowd.

The real news was how lefty wingy thingy activists threatened performers with death threats or threats to destroy they’re carears if they performed at the inauguration.

Oh Beyonce could do a 2 million $ performance for Muammar al-Qaddafi, but pulled out of Trumps gig.

As Steyn pointed out, if Qaddafi had given the 2 million to the Clinton foundation he’d still be alive today.

The_observer said:

How about the fake news in regards to nobody turning up for the inaugration.

You’ve got it wrong again. Trump claimed the largest crowd ever when the evidence shows that there was a larger crowd for Obama in 2008.

Thin-skinned Trump then claims the media is against him for questioning his lies.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

How about the fake news in regards to nobody turning up for the inaugration.

You’ve got it wrong again. Trump claimed the largest crowd ever when the evidence shows that there was a larger crowd for Obama in 2008.

Thin-skinned Trump then claims the media is against him for questioning his lies.

No i don’t have it wrong. I know what I read

The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

How about the fake news in regards to nobody turning up for the inaugration.

You’ve got it wrong again. Trump claimed the largest crowd ever when the evidence shows that there was a larger crowd for Obama in 2008.

Thin-skinned Trump then claims the media is against him for questioning his lies.

No i don’t have it wrong. I know what I read

Hah. Whatever gets you through the day.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

You’ve got it wrong again. Trump claimed the largest crowd ever when the evidence shows that there was a larger crowd for Obama in 2008.

Thin-skinned Trump then claims the media is against him for questioning his lies.

No i don’t have it wrong. I know what I read

Hah. Whatever gets you through the day.

I don’t suffer from Trumpy derangement syndrome so I’ll be fine thanks

• Which policies in relation to primary industries do you think are disingenuous? For myself, I think ending animal cruelty is worthy but unattainable, but being oblivious to the practices of intensive farming while consuming the end product is rather disingenuous. Live export is a pretty crappy business, ask vets who travel on the ships just how crappy it is. How many jobs are lost by simply chucking animals on boats and sending them off, too?

Primary industry is More than live exports, which I don’t have a strong opinion on, but also includes agriculture in general as well as things such as forestry and mining. These are all things that the Greens are ideologically opposed to…

furious said:

• Which policies in relation to primary industries do you think are disingenuous? For myself, I think ending animal cruelty is worthy but unattainable, but being oblivious to the practices of intensive farming while consuming the end product is rather disingenuous. Live export is a pretty crappy business, ask vets who travel on the ships just how crappy it is. How many jobs are lost by simply chucking animals on boats and sending them off, too?

Primary industry is More than live exports, which I don’t have a strong opinion on, but also includes agriculture in general as well as things such as forestry and mining. These are all things that the Greens are ideologically opposed to…

I sense some degree of exaggeration.

• I sense some degree of exaggeration.

Which bit?

furious said:

• I sense some degree of exaggeration.

Which bit?

Greens are not opposed to agriculture, they are in favour of sustainable agriculture.

https://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-agriculture

• they are in favour of sustainable agriculture.

They say they favour environmentally approved forestry and mining too and yet they seem to object to each and every new project that is proposed, even when the environmental approvals are given. If they had control of environmental approvals then nothing would be approved at all. Their attitude suggests they are completely opposed to these types of activities, regardless of what they might say in policy…

furious said:

• they are in favour of sustainable agriculture.

They say they favour environmentally approved forestry and mining too and yet they seem to object to each and every new project that is proposed, even when the environmental approvals are given. If they had control of environmental approvals then nothing would be approved at all. Their attitude suggests they are completely opposed to these types of activities, regardless of what they might say in policy…

I take you are not aware of the plight of our flora and fauna, which are further devastated by land clearing and forestry that continually encroach upon it. Some people think we should try and protect what is left.

Who exactly are those referred to as ‘greens’ in this thread, or any other utterance using this description? Is it the political party? Greenpeace? Or just people who think the natural world is a thing of value with a right to survive?

PermeateFree said:

Who exactly are those referred to as ‘greens’ in this thread, or any other utterance using this description? Is it the political party? Greenpeace? Or just people who think the natural world is a thing of value with a right to survive?

Bush walkers.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Who exactly are those referred to as ‘greens’ in this thread, or any other utterance using this description? Is it the political party? Greenpeace? Or just people who think the natural world is a thing of value with a right to survive?

Bush walkers.

Extremist bushwalkers

Earlier, there was reference to ‘the Greens’ imposing a fine on someone.

Just how does a particular political party impose a fine on anyone who isn’t a member of that party, especially for something not concerned with the internal workings of that party?

mcgoon said:

Earlier, there was reference to ‘the Greens’ imposing a fine on someone.

Just how does a particular political party impose a fine on anyone who isn’t a member of that party, especially for something not concerned with the internal workings of that party?

Agenda 21, a UN manifesto to take away the rights of a land holder, to say, cut down a tree or clear land.

Its extreme enviromentalism. Taken up by local councils, they fine landholders thousands of dollars, as earlier mentioned, $35,000, for a person who cleared land around his house to prevent losing his home to bushfire. It worked.

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

Earlier, there was reference to ‘the Greens’ imposing a fine on someone.

Just how does a particular political party impose a fine on anyone who isn’t a member of that party, especially for something not concerned with the internal workings of that party?

Agenda 21, a UN manifesto to take away the rights of a land holder, to say, cut down a tree or clear land.

Its extreme enviromentalism. Taken up by local councils, they fine landholders thousands of dollars, as earlier mentioned, $35,000, for a person who cleared land around his house to prevent losing his home to bushfire. It worked.

Where did this happen?

LOL Agenda 21, so beloved by conspiracy theorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability

Agenda 21 sounds like a punk band name…

furious said:

Agenda 21 sounds like a punk band name…

Or a new alternative for the LGBTI people.

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

Earlier, there was reference to ‘the Greens’ imposing a fine on someone.

Just how does a particular political party impose a fine on anyone who isn’t a member of that party, especially for something not concerned with the internal workings of that party?

Agenda 21, a UN manifesto to take away the rights of a land holder, to say, cut down a tree or clear land.

Its extreme enviromentalism. Taken up by local councils, they fine landholders thousands of dollars, as earlier mentioned, $35,000, for a person who cleared land around his house to prevent losing his home to bushfire. It worked.

What rights do land holders have?

They don’t even have the right to claim anything as their own other than what they are prepared to kill for. This they have often done and got away with murder, right down through history.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

mcgoon said:

Earlier, there was reference to ‘the Greens’ imposing a fine on someone.

Just how does a particular political party impose a fine on anyone who isn’t a member of that party, especially for something not concerned with the internal workings of that party?

Agenda 21, a UN manifesto to take away the rights of a land holder, to say, cut down a tree or clear land.

Its extreme enviromentalism. Taken up by local councils, they fine landholders thousands of dollars, as earlier mentioned, $35,000, for a person who cleared land around his house to prevent losing his home to bushfire. It worked.

What rights do land holders have?

They don’t even have the right to claim anything as their own other than what they are prepared to kill for. This they have often done and got away with murder, right down through history.

It is not unknown for people to buy into a community that values the indigenous vegetation, to then clear it. The same people will use any excuse to justify their actions, including ‘any vegetation is flammable and a fire threat to their home.’ If it was so important for these people to satisfy their fire phobias, they should have purchased a paddock?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Agenda 21, a UN manifesto to take away the rights of a land holder, to say, cut down a tree or clear land.

Its extreme enviromentalism. Taken up by local councils, they fine landholders thousands of dollars, as earlier mentioned, $35,000, for a person who cleared land around his house to prevent losing his home to bushfire. It worked.

What rights do land holders have?

They don’t even have the right to claim anything as their own other than what they are prepared to kill for. This they have often done and got away with murder, right down through history.

It is not unknown for people to buy into a community that values the indigenous vegetation, to then clear it. The same people will use any excuse to justify their actions, including ‘any vegetation is flammable and a fire threat to their home.’ If it was so important for these people to satisfy their fire phobias, they should have purchased a paddock?

My next door neighbour is from the UK & is trying to make her place an “English Country Garden”.
She’s been at it for years but this is the tropics & the natives thrive & overwhelm her hollyhocks & petunias.

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL Agenda 21, so beloved by conspiracy theorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Nothing conspiritable about it at all.

If you even trim back, let alone chop down a tree or bush, 2.5M tall, minimum, that you payed for & planted, you will be fined by the local council if caught.

UN Agenda 21 Australia

Decision-Making: Legislation and Regulations

In May 1996, the Federal Government introduced a number of treaty reforms designed to take fuller account of Australia’s federal structure and the importance of consultation with Australian State and Territory Governments. At an intergovernmental level, a Treaties Council has been established as an adjunct to the Council of Australian Governments. At the federal level, all treaties, with the exception of urgent and sensitive treaties, are required to be tabled in Parliament at least 15 sitting days to allow for Parliamentary scrutiny before binding treaty action is taken. In addition National Interest Analyses are required to be prepared for all treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party. This package of treaty reforms will enhance domestic involvement in, and ensure Parliamentary scrutiny of, treaties to which Australia intends to become a party. In this way treaty reforms are expected to have a positive impact on the operation and implementation of international environmental law in Australia.

I’d like to make a comment about sustainability. I am speaking as someone who has voted green a lot in a state that has had green members of state parliament for 30 something years and has had a couple of goes at coalition govt. I don’t know a lot about forestry in other states but in Tasmania it has been trash and burn forestry for all the time I have lived here. It has cost state and federal taxes to oversee the trashing. It averages out at over 50 million dollars cash a year PLUS whatever is lost in the deals that Tasmanians are not allowed to know about.

20 + years ago we had Tasmanian Together. Tasmanians were asked what sort of future they wanted. They wanted to stop chipping forests (economically it was costing a lot to chip forests) The People. The Greens. It needed to be sustainable. So we started trashing the forests for plantations. They cut down the leatherwood because for some reason it was more important to grow plantations than eat honey. We planted E.nitens. There were MIS schemes. Abetz was telling everyone to get on board. They planted E.nitens over dairy farms and vegi farms even though forestry wasn’t supposed to take the good bits. They planted E.Nitens where trees had never grown. On the west coast in the salty marsh. Investors in Sydney didn’t know that that was what was happening.

My brother in law was playing golf somewhere on the Northern beaches with a fellow that said he had just invested half a mill into the MIS. He went to a bank wanting to get a loan on an investment flat. He had the half mill deposit. He walked out of the bank with a scheme. I groaned so loudly when my sister told me about it.

There was the Rise and Fall of Gunns. https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/rise-and-fall-gunns-ltd/

We have a stoopid amount of landscape tied up in Nitens. It’s pretty crap stuff.

Farmers who bought into the schemes have acres that are not receiving maintenance because Gunns is supposed to do that and they are in liquidation. They aren’t allowed to remove the trees because Gunns still owns them. They have lost their investment and the money they might have made growing turnips and celery.

The only really good news from the MIS were the substantial plantings of walnuts. The walnuts were the sustainable bit. And they mostly went on sheep run that was then irrigated. It didn’t need to rip everyone off. Produce more exports every year.

I am not really sure of what corporations mean by sustainable. The Forestry Corporation…that was a state govt dept before being corporatised so as not to be responsible for anything, it’s all secret business, can’t get a sustainability logo. They can’t prove it environmentally, socially or economically. Over the years they have wasted forests, forced all the small millers out, pushed the customers to a one stop shop, made a lot more people sad than happy, and have cost a lot of state and fed taxes doing it.

So.. the Greens (and a proportion of other Tassie citizens) twenty years ago were wrong about plantations. (ceptin walnuts.) (which was Roberts not Gunns/Forestry.) this is where the Greens were full of shit. They were thinking that going to plantations would mean the end of trashing.

sarahs mum said:

I’d like to make a comment about sustainability. I am speaking as someone who has voted green a lot in a state that has had green members of state parliament for 30 something years and has had a couple of goes at coalition govt. I don’t know a lot about forestry in other states but in Tasmania it has been trash and burn forestry for all the time I have lived here. It has cost state and federal taxes to oversee the trashing. It averages out at over 50 million dollars cash a year PLUS whatever is lost in the deals that Tasmanians are not allowed to know about.

20 + years ago we had Tasmanian Together. Tasmanians were asked what sort of future they wanted. They wanted to stop chipping forests (economically it was costing a lot to chip forests) The People. The Greens. It needed to be sustainable. So we started trashing the forests for plantations. They cut down the leatherwood because for some reason it was more important to grow plantations than eat honey. We planted E.nitens. There were MIS schemes. Abetz was telling everyone to get on board. They planted E.nitens over dairy farms and vegi farms even though forestry wasn’t supposed to take the good bits. They planted E.Nitens where trees had never grown. On the west coast in the salty marsh. Investors in Sydney didn’t know that that was what was happening.

My brother in law was playing golf somewhere on the Northern beaches with a fellow that said he had just invested half a mill into the MIS. He went to a bank wanting to get a loan on an investment flat. He had the half mill deposit. He walked out of the bank with a scheme. I groaned so loudly when my sister told me about it.

There was the Rise and Fall of Gunns. https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/rise-and-fall-gunns-ltd/

We have a stoopid amount of landscape tied up in Nitens. It’s pretty crap stuff.

Farmers who bought into the schemes have acres that are not receiving maintenance because Gunns is supposed to do that and they are in liquidation. They aren’t allowed to remove the trees because Gunns still owns them. They have lost their investment and the money they might have made growing turnips and celery.

The only really good news from the MIS were the substantial plantings of walnuts. The walnuts were the sustainable bit. And they mostly went on sheep run that was then irrigated. It didn’t need to rip everyone off. Produce more exports every year.

I am not really sure of what corporations mean by sustainable. The Forestry Corporation…that was a state govt dept before being corporatised so as not to be responsible for anything, it’s all secret business, can’t get a sustainability logo. They can’t prove it environmentally, socially or economically. Over the years they have wasted forests, forced all the small millers out, pushed the customers to a one stop shop, made a lot more people sad than happy, and have cost a lot of state and fed taxes doing it.

So.. the Greens (and a proportion of other Tassie citizens) twenty years ago were wrong about plantations. (ceptin walnuts.) (which was Roberts not Gunns/Forestry.) this is where the Greens were full of shit. They were thinking that going to plantations would mean the end of trashing.

Tasmania is the basket case of self-destruction.

sarahs mum said:

I’d like to make a comment about sustainability. I am speaking as someone who has voted green a lot in a state that has had green members of state parliament for 30 something years and has had a couple of goes at coalition govt. I don’t know a lot about forestry in other states but in Tasmania it has been trash and burn forestry for all the time I have lived here. It has cost state and federal taxes to oversee the trashing. It averages out at over 50 million dollars cash a year PLUS whatever is lost in the deals that Tasmanians are not allowed to know about.

20 + years ago we had Tasmanian Together. Tasmanians were asked what sort of future they wanted. They wanted to stop chipping forests (economically it was costing a lot to chip forests) The People. The Greens. It needed to be sustainable. So we started trashing the forests for plantations. They cut down the leatherwood because for some reason it was more important to grow plantations than eat honey. We planted E.nitens. There were MIS schemes. Abetz was telling everyone to get on board. They planted E.nitens over dairy farms and vegi farms even though forestry wasn’t supposed to take the good bits. They planted E.Nitens where trees had never grown. On the west coast in the salty marsh. Investors in Sydney didn’t know that that was what was happening.

My brother in law was playing golf somewhere on the Northern beaches with a fellow that said he had just invested half a mill into the MIS. He went to a bank wanting to get a loan on an investment flat. He had the half mill deposit. He walked out of the bank with a scheme. I groaned so loudly when my sister told me about it.

There was the Rise and Fall of Gunns. https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/rise-and-fall-gunns-ltd/

We have a stoopid amount of landscape tied up in Nitens. It’s pretty crap stuff.

Farmers who bought into the schemes have acres that are not receiving maintenance because Gunns is supposed to do that and they are in liquidation. They aren’t allowed to remove the trees because Gunns still owns them. They have lost their investment and the money they might have made growing turnips and celery.

The only really good news from the MIS were the substantial plantings of walnuts. The walnuts were the sustainable bit. And they mostly went on sheep run that was then irrigated. It didn’t need to rip everyone off. Produce more exports every year.

I am not really sure of what corporations mean by sustainable. The Forestry Corporation…that was a state govt dept before being corporatised so as not to be responsible for anything, it’s all secret business, can’t get a sustainability logo. They can’t prove it environmentally, socially or economically. Over the years they have wasted forests, forced all the small millers out, pushed the customers to a one stop shop, made a lot more people sad than happy, and have cost a lot of state and fed taxes doing it.

So.. the Greens (and a proportion of other Tassie citizens) twenty years ago were wrong about plantations. (ceptin walnuts.) (which was Roberts not Gunns/Forestry.) this is where the Greens were full of shit. They were thinking that going to plantations would mean the end of trashing.

My neighbouring farmer in South Mole Creek was planting various dense plantations that were already quite big when I left. Don’t know what became of all that.

PermeateFree said:

sarahs mum said:

I’d like to make a comment about sustainability. I am speaking as someone who has voted green a lot in a state that has had green members of state parliament for 30 something years and has had a couple of goes at coalition govt. I don’t know a lot about forestry in other states but in Tasmania it has been trash and burn forestry for all the time I have lived here. It has cost state and federal taxes to oversee the trashing. It averages out at over 50 million dollars cash a year PLUS whatever is lost in the deals that Tasmanians are not allowed to know about.

20 + years ago we had Tasmanian Together. Tasmanians were asked what sort of future they wanted. They wanted to stop chipping forests (economically it was costing a lot to chip forests) The People. The Greens. It needed to be sustainable. So we started trashing the forests for plantations. They cut down the leatherwood because for some reason it was more important to grow plantations than eat honey. We planted E.nitens. There were MIS schemes. Abetz was telling everyone to get on board. They planted E.nitens over dairy farms and vegi farms even though forestry wasn’t supposed to take the good bits. They planted E.Nitens where trees had never grown. On the west coast in the salty marsh. Investors in Sydney didn’t know that that was what was happening.

My brother in law was playing golf somewhere on the Northern beaches with a fellow that said he had just invested half a mill into the MIS. He went to a bank wanting to get a loan on an investment flat. He had the half mill deposit. He walked out of the bank with a scheme. I groaned so loudly when my sister told me about it.

There was the Rise and Fall of Gunns. https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/rise-and-fall-gunns-ltd/

We have a stoopid amount of landscape tied up in Nitens. It’s pretty crap stuff.

Farmers who bought into the schemes have acres that are not receiving maintenance because Gunns is supposed to do that and they are in liquidation. They aren’t allowed to remove the trees because Gunns still owns them. They have lost their investment and the money they might have made growing turnips and celery.

The only really good news from the MIS were the substantial plantings of walnuts. The walnuts were the sustainable bit. And they mostly went on sheep run that was then irrigated. It didn’t need to rip everyone off. Produce more exports every year.

I am not really sure of what corporations mean by sustainable. The Forestry Corporation…that was a state govt dept before being corporatised so as not to be responsible for anything, it’s all secret business, can’t get a sustainability logo. They can’t prove it environmentally, socially or economically. Over the years they have wasted forests, forced all the small millers out, pushed the customers to a one stop shop, made a lot more people sad than happy, and have cost a lot of state and fed taxes doing it.

So.. the Greens (and a proportion of other Tassie citizens) twenty years ago were wrong about plantations. (ceptin walnuts.) (which was Roberts not Gunns/Forestry.) this is where the Greens were full of shit. They were thinking that going to plantations would mean the end of trashing.

Tasmania is the basket case of self-destruction.

It reminds of that survey a year or two back. When asked ‘which state is the most corrupt in Australia?’ most people nominated their own home state.

But Tassie does do it well.

Case in point. We are doing a good line in tourism. Hobart is sometimes fully booked. The fragrance hotel group has bought a bit of the CBD quite cheap by international standards. They want to build tower blocks. Three times the height of previous mistakes. We’ll fast track that sort of investment says the fat bastard.