You are showing your ignorance again Noco. Climate change is the threat to the reef that Obama was highlighting and unless the Australian laws and regulations can limit other countries carbon emissions it's not going to make much difference.
So you say you know more about the Great Barrier Reef than Professor Peter Ridd and Professor Bob Cater (JCU) who have studied the reef and climate change for the past 25 years.
So you don't believe the state and federal governments have strict environmental controls on the reef.
I would say you know as little as Obama does.
The Greens could not care less about the environment...they use that as an excuse to disrupt the economy and progress of development in Queensland......This is a typical Fabian treat...if you are not aware of their tactics, then you are very naive and you should do some research on that organization.
A bit off topic of this thread but it is in reply.
There you go explod, all you need to know about the protection of the Great Barrier Reef...the laws and regulations are very strict...It is a pity Obama did not bother to do some research before he opened that big mouth of his....Obama was also advised by his ambassador not to make that speech to those uni students.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/legislation-regulations-and-policies#leg_spec_gbrmp
You are showing your ignorance again Noco. Climate change is the threat to the reef that Obama was highlighting and unless the Australian laws and regulations can limit other countries carbon emissions it's not going to make much difference.
What is your proof of your statement...where is your link?
Apart from that you are completely off topic...the thread is about the Victorian election.
You and plod should direct these matters to the Climate Change Hysteria thread.
What is your proof of your statement...where is your link?
Apart from that you are completely off topic...the thread is about the Victorian election.
You and plod should direct these matters to the Climate Change Hysteria thread.
I like how you retreat to "this is off topic" after it becomes clear you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'll just leave this here:
Mr Obama told the University of Queensland audience on the sidelines of the G20 meeting he wanted the reef to still exist "50 years from now" so his grandchildren could visit.
While Ms Bishop and other Coalition leaders have criticised the US President's intervention, leading scientists have come to his support.
Mr Obama was "right on the money", Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the university's Global Change Institute, said. "He was stating a fact.
"We have one of the jewels of the planet in our possession and we should care a lot about climate and he wasn't getting that from our leader [Prime Minister Tony Abbott]," Dr Hoegh-Guldberg said.
Peer-reviewed research published by Dr Hoegh-Guldberg in 2012 said the global agreement to limit CO₂ concentrations to 450 parts per million in a bid to keep global warming to under 2 degrees from pre-industrial times would not be enough to protect the reefs.
Any increase above 1.5 degrees would be devastating, the research found.
The reef has already shrunk by half in 30 years, he added, with climate change a factor in its retreat.
Threats
Charlie Veron, a former chief scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, went further, saying the Abbott government was downplaying the dire future facing the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs everywhere.
"In the long term, that is the whole of this century, we are going to have the Great Barrier Reef slaughtered," Dr Veron, a world authority who has scientifically named about one-quarter of all known corals, said.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...s-claim-reef-not-at-risk-20141121-11r4a6.html
What an absolute and complete load of rubbish you spout Noco. Just total and complete illogical drivel.
Two points.
1) Climate Change is a political issue in elections. People realise it is a problem. They want intelligent responses to a very real issue.
2) You have absolutely NFC about the topic of CC. You simply drivel and deny. It doesn't matter how many scientists come out with truckloads empirical studies, observations and evidence... you simply twitter on with meaningless nonsense.
The new Labor Government appears to be facing a hostile upper house and may well realize what the Federal Government has had to face from a hostile bloody minded senate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...140238059?sv=fed379641529c81aee6bff62893a5186
The upper house is expected to be a nightmare for the new *government, with up to six micro parties tipped to have the balance of power
Didn't they already experience that during Rudd/Gillard years? They had to negotiate their position with the greens because the LNP opposed everything, which at the time was explained away by Abbott as their job (which made me wonder why they turned up at all. Perhaps if he had been more approachable seven years ago, he could have negotiated the LNP cause into legislation?
Of course when I did law, I was led to belief the opposition is the alternative govt, but I guess that was a bit wishful.
I think if you check your facts you will find Gillard had a lot easier passage through the senate...she had a larger majority in the senate than Abbott had particularly before the 1st July 2014.....after that date negotiations had to be carried out with PUP and the independents.
The new Labor Government appears to be facing a hostile upper house and may well realize what the Federal Government has had to face from a hostile bloody minded senate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...140238059?sv=fed379641529c81aee6bff62893a5186
The upper house is expected to be a nightmare for the new *government, with up to six micro parties tipped to have the balance of power
I don't know where you get this stuff from. Gillard never had a majority?
lets hope you will make the same level of calls for the Victorian Senate to get out of the way and let the Government govern as you have at the federal level.
Fingers crossed the VIC Labor ministers will try to introduce a fairer budget so as to give the micro parties less leverage to block policies.
Didn't they already experience that during Rudd/Gillard years? They had to negotiate their position with the greens because the LNP opposed everything, which at the time was explained away by Abbott as their job (which made me wonder why they turned up at all. Perhaps if he had been more approachable seven years ago, he could have negotiated the LNP cause into legislation?
Of course when I did law, I was led to belief the opposition is the alternative govt, but I guess that was a bit wishful.
I don't know where you get this stuff from. Gillard never had a majority?
I think if you check your facts you will find Gillard had a lot easier passage through the senate...she had a larger majority in the senate than Abbott had particularly before the 1st July 2014.....after that date negotiations had to be carried out with PUP and the independents.
Where did you do law?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?