- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 851
Fair enough.Dutchie I notice on this thread that you never, ever, ever offer the smallest shred of evidence for anything you say.
"Climate change is rubbish" " Marxism is the Greatest Threat to the world" so on and so forth. These are simply your grand opinions cast as... whatever.
Asking for any evidence to back up your normal sweeping comments is of course futile. You can't, you won't and you never will.
Rather than add your sarcasm to the issue, try to understand what has been raised by the student instead of brushing it off as "A more ridiculous thing I have never heard."Okay Rob, as you seen to be both a practicing barrister and a climate scientist, not to mention an omnipotent and omnipresent seer, I am going to suggest to the young lady concerned to sack her activist legal team, who are clearly trying to float a turd, and seek the services of almighty, all seeing and all knowing rederob </sarc>
Rather than add your sarcasm to the issue, try to understand what has been raised by the student instead of brushing it off as "A more ridiculous thing I have never heard."
Most posters here know that financial instruments are required by law to disclose risk.
Added to that APRA — the Australian financial industry regulator — said in 2017 that climate change was not only a "foreseeable" risk, but also "material and actionable now".
In that light, when the Commonwealth sells bonds what allows it to evade the laws it sets for the industry it regulates?
Bonds are tradable instruments, so their value will vary in keeping with the fluidity of money markets.Governments like Australia never default on bonds, so the risk in holding bonds is essentially zero and there is no need to give information about risks to bondholders.
That's not denying that climate change is real and a risk to the economy but in terms of the court case I don't think that the lady has a leg to stand on.
Sarcasm is more apt, Rob.Rather than add your sarcasm to the issue, try to understand what has been raised by the student instead of brushing it off as "A more ridiculous thing I have never heard."
Most posters here know that financial instruments are required by law to disclose risk.
Added to that APRA — the Australian financial industry regulator — said in 2017 that climate change was not only a "foreseeable" risk, but also "material and actionable now".
In that light, when the Commonwealth sells bonds what allows it to evade the laws it sets for the industry it regulates?
and a good read: https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/epishelf-lakes-ecosystem-facing-extinction/
I got a miserable 4/10 in this quiz.
See how you go.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-08-22/climate-change-quiz/12503436
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?