Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Garpal Gumnut]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.

They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.

Probably more representative of the canard,

" If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart, and if you are a socialist when you are old, you have no brains."

When I was a young boomer I was out there getting whacked by coppers, now I am in agreement with the anti Carbon Tax mob.

gg

 

[Ruby]

Not at the current rate, ever.

Yes, Explod, at the current rate, often!!!

 

[explod]

Yes, Explod, at the current rate, often!!!

Okay, explain it in your own words without quoting others or a heap of text.

 

[Julia]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

Ah, jolly good: here we go again with the stupid mass generalisations about any age cohort. Can't you just perhaps think for yourself instead of incessantly subscribing to such a cliche?

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

I can't help myself here, although I usually refrain from correcting spelling, there is no such word as 'rally's', unless perhaps someone called 'rally' were to be indicating something belonging to him/her.
Try "rallies", a simple plural of "rally".

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.

They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.

What utter piffle! I'm a baby boomer and fairly typical amongst my friends and acquaintances of this generation. If there are additional costs as a result of a carbon tax, it isn't going to materially affect our standard of living in the slightest.

I'm way more concerned about the impact on those individuals and families who are not well off, and who are already very stressed about the rising cost of living.

But most of all, I'm simply outraged about a government, in its state of being held hostage to the nutty Greens, which is about to impose on the whole population a tax which even they or their 'advisers' have openly admitted will make no difference to the climate, especially in the light of any such similar action being taken by major emitters of the dreaded carbon dioxide.

So, IF, kindly save your irrational generalisations and misconceived conclusions for someone more vulnerable to stupidity than most of the members of this forum.

 

[trainspotter]

But most of all, I'm simply outraged about a government, in its state of being held hostage to the nutty Greens, which is about to impose on the whole population a tax which even they or their 'advisers' have openly admitted will make no difference to the climate, especially in the light of any such similar action being taken by major emitters of the dreaded carbon dioxide.

I am so down with this it is not funny.

 

[medicowallet]

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

The rally's against climate change filled with gray hairs and the rally's for filled with future generations.

This seems to also flow though to a whole range of issues not just CG.

Any thing to do with the future BB's ardently refuse any change that endangers their wealth no matter what the risk is to the future.

They / we seem happy for others to pay for their belligerence.

In addition to what Julia and GG wrote:

Ifocus, when you learn about the real world, you will then realise that the government wants to take you for a ride.

Do some research into CO2 and then, when you have made up your own mind, then come back and post in 10 years time.

Something that generally comes with life experience is looking at something for yourself, as opposed to just taking what other people say (whatever their own focus is influences what they say).

The worst thing anyone can ever do is trust what people say, without thinking for themselves.

 

[sails]

Not at the current rate, ever.

This has been the coldest winter in Qld for a while, so I don't know what you are on about, explod. Skies are still wonderfully blue and clear on fine days. Weather cycles seems just as normal as 50+ years ago.

Its is interesting watching the disconnect in generations as the selfish baby boomers fight to defend their wealth at the expense of the younger generations.

But what will carbon tax actually achieve? I posted an email the other day from Mark Dreyfus who stated that temperatures will not fall with carbon tax even up to the next 50 years. It seems very unlikely that carbon tax will do a thing for the environment - so how does that make anyone (let alone baby boomers) selfish for resisting this unnecessary tax imposition?

And before you go on about baby boomers being selfish, there are more baby boomer grandparents helping to look after grandchildren than I think in any other time in history. And that's often an expensive process. Most raised their own families and then have had to almost do it all over again so both parents can work and some times because the kid's parent/s can't cope.

Some baby boomers have helped their kids get into the housing market, paid for education, etc. Calling them selfish is rude and unnecessary, imo.

There are selfish and unselfish people in every generation, so please go somewhere else with your generalisations.

 

[explod]

But what will carbon tax actually achieve? I posted an email the other day from Mark Dreyfus who stated that temperatures will not fall with carbon tax even up to the next 50 years. It seems very unlikely that carbon tax will do a thing for the environment - so how does that make anyone (let alone baby boomers) selfish for resisting this unnecessary tax imposition?

The carbon tax is about attitude. Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.

I do not know if the carbon tax is the correct way to start but any move to try and change the general mindset towards having greater regard for our fragile planet is good in my view.

And yes Australia is less than a mere grain in the sand compared to the rest of the world but we are an educated developed country and it is at this level world wide that needs to lead the less developed worlds. If is was not for us from our Motherland England/Spain et.al. the third world would still be in their jungles healthy and happy.

So we have to take some reponsibility.

Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean. Happened before, sure but not at this speed. Check out the book "The Sixth Extinction", what was before is all there.

And of course its colder than before at times in some places, I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes. Warmer areas bring more cloud at times which creates colder spots at times. And apart from being an armchair expert just looking out the window is not going to tell us very much at all.

 

[noco]

The carbon tax is about attitude. Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.

I do not know if the carbon tax is the correct way to start but any move to try and change the general mindset towards having greater regard for our fragile planet is good in my view.

And yes Australia is less than a mere grain in the sand compared to the rest of the world but we are an educated developed country and it is at this level world wide that needs to lead the less developed worlds. If is was not for us from our Motherland England/Spain et.al. the third world would still be in their jungles healthy and happy.

So we have to take some reponsibility.

Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean. Happened before, sure but not at this speed. Check out the book "The Sixth Extinction", what was before is all there.

And of course its colder than before at times in some places, I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes. Warmer areas bring more cloud at times which creates colder spots at times. And apart from being an armchair expert just looking out the window is not going to tell us very much at all.

Explod, how do you separate carbon from carbon dioxide? Do you have to put it through a strainer?

 

[joea]

The carbon tax is about attitude. Many believe we have to start somewhere and this tax will impact on the biggest polluters who will have to clean up their act and approach.

I do not know if the carbon tax is the correct way to start but any move to try and change the general mindset towards having greater regard for our fragile planet is good in my view.

And yes Australia is less than a mere grain in the sand compared to the rest of the world but we are an educated developed country and it is at this level world wide that needs to lead the less developed worlds. If is was not for us from our Motherland England/Spain et.al. the third world would still be in their jungles healthy and happy.

So we have to take some reponsibility.

Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean. Happened before, sure but not at this speed. Check out the book "The Sixth Extinction", what was before is all there.

And of course its colder than before at times in some places, I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes. Warmer areas bring more cloud at times which creates colder spots at times. And apart from being an armchair expert just looking out the window is not going to tell us very much at all.

I think you have summed it up very well.
But I think the timing is the problem. With our economy in a spiral down, add Gillards interference and Swan saying we are in great shape, well something has to come to a head.
I believe there has to be a change, but I read that (some) but probably not enough, company's are reducing energy etc, but Gillard will not admitt it.
joea

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I haven't noticed any erosion or abnormal high tides at the Strand in Townsville or at Cungulla where I sometimes go fishing with some mates.

Lots of crocs, no erosion.

When does the sea start to rise according to the theory of Al Gore and the other alarmists.?

gg

 

[Calliope]

.
I was told by my Children doing science 20 years ago at school that global warming would bring about grteater extremes.

So your children were indoctrinated at school? Indoctrination is not science. Whoever told them this, were themselves indoctrinated.

And by the way, does your policy of one child per family apply only to the third world, and not to the Green Plods?:shake:

 

[joea]

In last weeks Australian, there is a article by Tim Flannery on Carbon Dating.
He refers to Stager who states "55 million years ago when a vast pulse of greenhouse gas entered the atmosphere, caused a reddish colour in the sea and caused the extintion of some marine life."

Well I was involvedin setting up a prawn farm with MCM.

We refer to this reddish colour as "toxic algae". It comes about by excess phosphorus in the water.
In prawn farming you create a green bloom to prevent the sunlight causing growth on the bottom of the pond. "algal bloom"
This bloom also is a source of food for small prawns etc.

So if Tim Flannery can use such a event to scare people about " toxic algae", and then link it to climate change, people are going to be reading a lot of rubbish.

But then most of you know that. Just thought I would mention it.
joea

 

[trainspotter]

Dreadful droughts across China and Texas at the moment and apprently a lot of the Antartic ice shelf is about to slide into the ocean. Happened before, sure but not at this speed.

WTF?? China is flooded !!!!!! June 17th 2011 this happened.

China has mobilized troops to help with flood relief and raised its disaster alert to the highest level after days of downpours forced the evacuation of more than half a million people in central and southern provinces.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/17/us-china-floods-idUSTRE75F5W220110617

Texas is in a drought BUT GUESS WHAT ??? It has happened before and the trend is WETTER!

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/04/drought-history-in-texas.html

Recall the meaning of the PDSI, in which values of -2 to -3 are "moderate drought", -3 to -4 are "severe drought", and -4 and below are "extreme drought". So the current value of about -3.2 is indeed a severe drought. At least if the PDSI is to be believed, it's not unprecedented however: I count 15 different years which have had a lower PDSI in March than 2011.

I've also added a trendline, which you will note slopes upward (ie to wetter conditions). However, a regression comes up with a slope of 0.0056 ± 0.0075 PDSI units/year - ie. the trend is smaller than the uncertainty and so it's not a statistically significant trend. At any rate, there certainly is no evidence in the record that Texas is getting drier overall (at least in March, at least so far).

So the ice shelf is falling into the sea at an unprecedented rate eh? NASA and USCS do not support this theory.

"The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me," Tulaczyk said. "Within the past 200 years, the ice sheet seems to have switched fairly rapidly from a negative mass balance to a positive mass balance."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm

The situation is perplexing

 

[noco]

My youngest son spent 6 months in Antarctica a couple of years ago and he told me ice falls into sea every summer. When he first arrived at Davis base, the Aurora Australis (ship) stopped 4km from the base and they had to walk over the ice to get to the camp. That was in mid October.

Whitin 2-3 weeks of his arrival the 1.5m of ice had melted and the next supply ship was able to dock at Davis.

Yes, the ice falls into the sea every summer; big deal according to the Climate Change Alarmists.

 

[IFocus]

Anything Green or otherwise to the Left has always tended to appeal more to the young (most notably uni students) whilst as people age their views tend to drift more to the Right.

I was absolutely a supporter of conservationists (the Greens as such not existing at the time) many years ago. Then I finished school and the first party I ever voted for was Labor. In due course my views drifted further away from the Left, though I still can't vote Liberal whilst they cling on to that religion nonsense.

I remember very well a political debate (with actual candidates attending) when I was in year 11 or 12. Probably 85% supported Bob Brown, and the rest were with Labor. Nobody, and I mean nobody, dared express any support for the Liberals. Pretty obviously, that doesn't reflect the view of the population as a whole, even though it reflected the view of 16 - 18 year olds at the time.

Based on what I've observed over the history of the party's existence, I'd say that the support base of the Greens is largely at either end of the spectrum. Young uni students etc at one end, high income professionals at the other.

At that time Smurf you were likely to be concerned about the future of the environment rightly so. Australia continues to lead the world in extinction of threaten and endangered wild life with absolutely no change in pace of that trend.

As for the Greens they seem more worried about gay rights that the environment these days.

Back to the future

The future for the generations to follow the selfish baby boomers isn't all that rosy as the ratio of workers supporting retirees changes quite dramatically. Nothing new here including lack of sufficient action by the BB's other than excuses.

I say selfish because BB's are, they failed to provide enough savings to provide for their retirement even though they have more than enough information as to what was going to happen.

They are selfish as they blow their money on rampant consumerism bigger cars, bigger houses, etc regardless of the fact that they have more than enough resources available to provide for their future, longer life spans, health care and retirement costs. But nope they expect some one else to pay...........

Similar to all the rally's now taking place of selfish gray hairs who polling has shown are not willing to pay one cent regardless of whether they believe in CG or not towards negating CG.

Nothing, zilch, Nada regardless of the method. The BB's will always be first in line with their hands out winging about the lack of government support.

Any change that could in any way effect the BB's wealth is meet with hysteria. Hysteria driven by the "Bugger everyone else its me that matters"

Abbott understands this selfish side of the BB's and feeds the manure accordingly which is lapped up by the faithful.

There is always a divide between the generations, the old claim wisdom as they send the young off to fight their wars. Sound familiar?

Vietnam, the young demonstrated about the wasted lives and cause and the old sent in the truncheons and tear gas. Who got that one right?
People who got sent off at the age of 19 like my Brother-in-law have payed for that one everyday since.

Make love not war that wasn't some old farts idea.

Oh and on the self righteous and indignant replies from forum BB's, they duly noted with a ironic smile lol

 

[trainspotter]

*GOSH* IFocus you are on a tangent today.

MAIN EXPECTED SOURCE OF INCOME AT RETIREMENT

Of all employed people aged 45 years and over who intended to retire from the labour force, 43% reported that their expected main source of income at retirement would be income from 'superannuation, an annuity or allocated pension'. The average age at which this group intended to retire was 63 years (64 years for men, 62 years for women). A higher proportion of men than women reported that this would be their main source of income (49% and 36% respectively).

The second most commonly reported expected main source of income at retirement was a 'government pension or allowance', with nearly one quarter (24%) of people who intended to retire expecting that this would be their main source (23% of men and 26% of women). The average age at which this group intended to retire was 65 years (66 years for men, 64 years for women). These ages are consistent with the age eligibility requirements to access the aged pension, which are 65 years for males, and between 63 and 65 years for females, depending on their date of birth (end note 7).

There were some men (10%) and women (20%) who intended to retire from the labour force and who did not expect to have any personal income source when they retired. These people expected to live off savings, assets or their partner's income. Women expecting to live off savings, assets or their partner's income had the lowest expected average age at retirement (60 years). Just over half (51%) of the women who intended to retire between the ages of 45 and 54 years, expected to have no personal income source when they retired.

People whose main expected source of income at retirement was 'own unincorporated business income', 'rental property income', 'dividends or interest', or 'superannuation, an annuity or allocated pension' were also asked to estimate how long they expected to be self-funding after they gave up all paid work. Close to half (44%) of those who reported their expected main source of income at retirement to be from 'superannuation, an annuity, or an allocated pension' estimated that they will be self-funding for life.

Both men and women intending to be funded by 'rental property income', or 'dividends or interest', also intended to retire relatively early, at 62 years. Over half (51%) of those intending to be mainly funded by 'rental property income' intended to be self-funding for life, as did 58% of those intending to be mainly funded by 'dividends or interest'.

Generally, men who intended to live off their 'own unincorporated business income' intended to retire relatively late. The average age at which they intended to retire was 66 years, and 43% of this group intended to be self-funding for life.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/36EDBADC29D261FECA25776100150592?OpenDocument

So quite the opposite in reality there IFocus. The BB's have actually prepared for their retirement and will be self funded. Less than a quarter will accept the Guvmint handouts.

The baby boomer generation, who were aged between 42 and 61 years at the time of the survey, accounted for two-fifths (40%) of all employed people aged 15 years and over (39% of employed men and 41% of employed women) and the majority (87%) of employed people aged 45 years and over (85% of employed men and 90% of employed women). They also accounted for 21% of retired people aged 45 years and over (18% of retired men and 24% of retired women).

The BB's are still working? Making uo 40% of the entire workforce??? NAhhhhhh that can't be right? They are all sucking on the Guvmint teat and welfare handouts !!! Selfish buggers, fancy having superannuation

 

[Julia]

IFocus: Let's see you put up reliable links to the hysterical accusations you are making about baby boomers, huh?

Trainspotter has quickly made your ranting look pretty silly.
We'll give you a chance to redeem yourself with some facts before either laughing hard or feeling sorry for you.

Reality: every generation will always have members who are selfish, wasteful, and thoughtless. It's the wild generalisations about whole cohorts that betray the ignorance of the accuser.

 

[trainspotter]

P.S. What has the BB's got to do with Climate Hysteria? Other than the IFocus hysterical posts whereby he is using electricty (generated by a coal gobbling electicity station) to fire up his computer with ranting vitriol?

 

[sails]

IFocus: Let's see you put up reliable links to the hysterical accusations you are making about baby boomers, huh?...

IFocus is clearly becomming more desperate by the day. Now it's the baby boomers fault....

I think it is labor policies on the run are causing most of our problems. Very likely a selfish PM who is greedy about power, selfish independents who thumbed their noses at their constituents are the thin threads holding this minority government together. It's not a good recipe for the best interests of the country.

I previously posted a few paragraphs pointing out the stupidity of blaming all baby boomers as some are very unselfish people. I pointed out how many, not only raised their own families, but then settled down to help their kids raise theirs either for economic or sickness reasons (as in my case).

But what's the point. IFocus just keeps squawking out the same repetitive stuff, it seems in an effort to blame anything else but labor's failed policies...