Saturday cartoon

Coby

I have to ask you - were you reading about the National Broadband Network and the politics of it when you were here in Australia? This cartoon seems to encapsulate it perfectly.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/

Reminds me of discussing AGW with "sceptics"

No actually, I have not heard of that issue. Nice examples of gov't incompetence there?

Coby you have no idea of the examples of gov incompetence going on here, i have thought about moving to NZ as i do not require a visa (mind you their accents are a little annoying). I work with a couple of Canadians and they tell me it is a nice country, can you recommend any good places to live :-))

Coby

Crakar reveals his political views quite clearly in his previous post. If he lived in the US, I have no doubt he would be part of the tea party movement, or work for Fox News.

However, rather than the National Broadband Network being an example of government incompetence, it is more closely aligned to your cartoon, and is an example of industry incompetence. Without boring you too much, in essence, the largest telecommunications company in the country has been led by an incompetent fool, who has had a running battle with the government about industry monopolies, and tried to bully the government into doing their bidding. They assumed they were the heir apparent to the broadband network - and the government called their bluff and awarded the contract to someone else.

The leader of the telco has since resigned and has left the country - to universal calls of 'good riddance'.

Hmm...large..incompetent

Sounds like Telstra!

Do i need to tell everyone who is the major shareholder of Telstra? Something very large.......something very incompetent.....

Crakar,
I will rise to the bait you set out in your Post #4, if only to poke a little fun.
*Our* accents are annoying? Oh really? And I suppose you have the mellifluous tones and the elocution of a BBC World News broadcaster by comparison?
Anyway, whether we have annoying accents or otherwise, we are smarter than you guys across the ditch if a legendary quote from a former Prime Minister of ours is to be believed (and weâre only too happy to believe it): "New Zealanders who emigrate to Australia raise the IQ of both countries."
So as well as having to contend with our marauding herds of sheep and taking a severe cut in your salary expectations if you come over here, you may also find yourself routinely on the end of an intellectual thrashing.
I'm not trying to sound annoying, but you have been warned . . .

Regards,

Glad to see we're on to the level of government capability to do things right. Now let's put that in the context of global warming, err "climate change", and decide if it would be wiser to tax, adapt or further prove the predictions.

PaulinMI,
Surely best to tax modestly and incrementally, have those taxes go directly into new energy technologies (or back to the people, as you've said before), stimulate adaptation through introduction of said subsidised technologies, and then whether things turn out to be as bad as predicted or not we have started some future-proofing on the whole peak oil thing?
I know that's over simplistic, but I wouldn't be terribly frightened by anything there, would you?
I'm not so sure if it's a case of government willingness anymore; it's a matter of whether they can even get out of the starting blocks. Yesterday the Australia government had to shelve its ETS for 3 years because they can't get it through Senate. I'm sure our regular Australian contributors can tell us why the ETS was being blocked by the Greens as well as the Conservatives, but it possibly shows that trying to get any kind of political traction on this issue is next to impossible.
Anyway, I don't like the idea of 'wait-and-see' before we get on with getting on.

Regards,

SBN,
Ok, as over simplistic, nothing frightening.
But there are a few things in regards to CO2's part of the total effect I'd like to see nailed down before proceeding to a solution.

I believe Crakar said ETS left too much coal export business going for the greens.

Due to politics, wait and see will likely be.

SBN,

I have been to NZ before in fact i worked/lived there for 6 months we built the CDMA mobile phone network back in 2000/2001?, does it still work (fingers crossed).

Anyway here is my opinion of your country:

1, Rotaroa (spelling) stinks, its nice but it stinks
2, Auckland is too hilly
3, Christchurch is exactly the same as Adelaide (same designer) but a much nicer place.
4, Who would have thought Whakatani (spelling) is pronounced Fuc....
5, Your Maccas still sold a hamburger called......shit forgot the name now, anyway it was my favourite one.
6A, I thought i knew what cold was but then i went to Invercargil.
6B, Thought i saw my first iceberg but then my TNZ friend told me it was called Swan island.
7, The south island would have to be the most beautiful, stunning, amazing country i have ever seen and if i did live in NZ i would live as close to Milford sound as i could, absolutely amazing.

In regards to your accent i could get used to it, hows this for a start. "You bitta git my fush and chups by sux or e well bi viry ipsit weth you" translates to "You better get my fish and chips by six or i will be very upset with you".

How did i go? :-))

My favourite was when the woman at the desk of the hotel i was staying in asked if i was "agist" i'm thinking what the F..K is she talking to me about lodging for my horse? Then she pointed upwards and i realised she wanted to know if i was a guest.

And yes i know the aussie lingo has a lot to be desired, for example when i hear "howya goin mate?" i do tend to cringe a little and when are they going to stop saying "Aussie, Aussie, Aiussie OI OI OI" for the love of God enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The ETS has been shelved until 2013 the reasons why are dependant on who you listen to. The Labor Gov never had the support of the Greens, Liberal and two independants in the senate. The Liberals have called it "a great green tax on everything" and vehemently opposed it and only came up with their own watered down version to appease the green tinged voters. In essence the Liberals are against any action against AGW.

The two independants voted against it basically because of the same reasons although i suggest with a bit of pork barrelling they may have been swung.

The greens wanted 25%? emission cuts as opposed to the gov 5% so they voted against it and yes Paul the greens were pissed off that the gov were continuing to export gas and coal.

Why did the gov not negotiate with other parties? Well they did with the Liberals and agreed to a slight watering down of the ETS, however most in the party did not like this so at the eleventh hour there was a bloodless coup and the Libs then voted against it although two liberals crossed the floor.

The Greens offered to negotiate with the Gov, they suggested a 15%? emission cut but the Labor gov did not like that (not sure why) anyway it has got all too hard for poor old Kevin Rudd. I suspect he shelved the whole thing because it will lose the election because if he wanted to pass it he could, not quite the way he wanted but very similar.

Crakar,
You're a natural!
Yes, Whakatane is a good one. That's why you'll never find any street in NZ called Whakatane Way . . .

Regards,

I just remembered it was called the Mc Feast, can you still buy it over there?

By the way i always barrack for the Kiwis when they do not play Australia, especially in cricket and union.

A few selected quotes from Kevin "the great pretender" Rudd when talking about the ETS.

âThe resolve of the Australian Government is clear we choose action, and we do so because Australiaâs fundamental economic and environmental interests lie in action.â

âThe challenge we face, and others around the world face, is to build momentum and overcome domestic political constraints. The truth is this is hard, because the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country. They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests. Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australiaâ¦â

â¦these three groups of climate skeptics are quite literally holding the world to ransom, provoking fear campaigns in every country they can, blocking or delaying domestic legislation.

âIt is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics ⦠It is to destroy the CPRS at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad, and our childrenâs fate and our grandchildrenâs fate will lie entirely with them. Itâs time to remove any polite veneer from this debate. The stakes are that high.â

The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change skeptics simply do not care. The vested interests at work are simply too great. â¦these donothing climate change skeptics are prepared to destroy our childrenâs future.

Climate change deniers are small in number, but they are too dangerous to be ignored.

They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence. The logic of these skeptics belongs in a casino, not a science lab, and not in the ranks of any responsible government.

Malcolm (Turnbull), Barnaby (Joyce), Andrew (Bolt), Janet, even Lord Monckton shouldnât even bother with the pretence of science and just admit the currency of their prescription for inaction has all the legitimacy of a roulette wheel.

The Government I lead will act.

Rudd has now shelved the ETS until 2013 and is now a political laughing stock here in Oz.

Like him or loathe him Crakar, Rudd spoke very eloquently there (I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.)
Also, I didn't realise you as a denier were such a powerful person! Now I'm thinking I don't want you over here in NZ. You could f**K us up completely!

Taking my tongue out of my cheek now, I'm a wee bit surprised that Australians aren't more on board with CC Action. But not as surprised as I was to hear yesterday that our government is thinking of excluding the agricultural sector (our biggest export earner by far) from our version of the ETS for the foreseeable future. My skepticism on the topic of action is almost solely based on whether it would provoke unnecessary economic hardship, without necessarily lowering carbon emissions or getting us off our oil habit. Maybe our regional governments are coming to a similar conclusion, or am I just reaching a convenient conclusion for myself here?

By the way, I think the McFeast has gone the way of the $7 MacAttack, which I used to call the $7 HeartAttack. We have 'healthy' McD's over here now. I'm Lovin' It.

Regards,

My last post was supposed to be in the narratives thread but just for you SBN i will do it one more time for old times sake.

"Also, I didn't realise you as a denier were such a powerful person! Now I'm thinking I don't want you over here in NZ. You could f**K us up completely!"

Germany pulled the pin on its version of ETS the day before KRudd abandoned his, you will be the only country in the world that actually has one, now once you start paying for it do me a favour and let me know how much cooler it gets over there. :-)))

Once you realise you have been duped give me a call and i will use my immense power to influence your government to drop the whole thing.

Although if you have no more Mc Feasts then i might just stay here.

Goodluck with your search for the truth SBN wherever it may take you, i believe i have already found mine.

Cheers

SBN,

Just stumbled across this, it may help you get onto the right path.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/co…

The last sentaence sums it up.

Cheers

SBN

Healthy McDonalds huh? What's next, low calorie chocolate?

On a more serious note, I just wanted to let you know about the 'Science and Public Policy Institute' (SPPI), which is a fine body of denialists who are primarily funded by Exxon (obviously, no conflict of interest there).

The chief scientific adviser to the SPPI is a guy by the name of Willie Soon, who was one of the authors of a fraudulant document which was circulated along with a petition urging 'scientists' who were opposed to global warning to sign. The paper is one of the most dishonest, and easily dissembled, piece of non-science I have ever had the misfortune to read. If you want a laugh (or a cry depending on your perspective), the paper is here:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Anyone with any science education (and many without) can easily spot the miriad of flaws in the document.

The Chief Policy Advisor to the SPPI is - wait for it!! - Lord Christopher Monkton!!! So you can imagine just how prejudiced and non-scientific anything produced by the SPPI really is. But, if you want to read more from the flat earth society - and there is no doubt that these guys are at the cutting edge of psuedo-science propganda - then there homesite is here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

A very brief scan of the title of some of their publications, and the ludicrously non-scientific summary and promotion which goes along with them, demonstrates very conclusively that the SPPI, despite it's name, has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Can anyone tell me if the graph (you know the one where you are asked to use the grey matter between your ears) is flawed, fraudulent, incorrect?.......anyone? No i did not think so. One of the reasons why i know it is correct is because the religious zealot did not mention it.

crakar, yes, it is flawed and fraudulent, though technically correct. Stay tuned for a post tomorrow morning (NA time, sorry, mate!)

Hi all.
It's me, lurking again.
You know, as a born and bred
resident of Brisbane, Australia, that cartoon does indeed remind me of the utter incompetence of our federal government.
Mandas, I agree with you that Telstra is the "bully-boy" that was being run by that "contract-journeyman/fly-by-nighter/wombat" who "eats, roots, and leaves", but I think we disagree on the role of K Rudd.
In the great "Kevin '07 Campaign" it was ONE of the miriad "core promises" that have now proven to have been resoundingly empty. (must I list them?)
The ETS, which I have posted about here before, was supposedly to counteract "the great moral challenge of our generation".
It has now been postponed for a couple of years, presumably to be (politically) forgotten about.
(Wait a minute! "Moral" challenge? What about "Scientific" challenge"???)
To me, it proves the meaningLESSness of it all from an environmental point of view, and the meaningFULLness of it from a political point of view.
I have posted many times before about how I think the entire AGW movement is politically motivated.
Before you all start screaming at me, I challenge you (physical challenge!!) to watch a documentary I saw recently called "The Corporation". (I rented it from my local video store. I'm sure you can too!)
Please find it and watch it before you judge me on this post?
There is a point made in that doco that strikes a chord with me.
The greed and power that comes from the "corporate structure" requires that there is never enough Profit/Growth.
By that mantra, ultimately, "everything" would be owned by a Corporation.
(there is an example in it where even rainwater is "owned")

I have been on the side of AGW Skeptics since I started writing here.
This documentary confirms my position even more strongly.
The trading of Carbon Credits is exactly in line with what this documentary is "exposing".
Please....
I beg you, dear reader, to watch this documentary and still think the same way about the concept of carbon trading.
Carbon Trading Schemes and Cap 'n' Trade Schemes play right into their hands.
Are you all aware of the alledged connection of Malcom Turnbull to Goldman Sachs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull
and here is Goldman Sachs.
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advising/environmental-markets/bu…

Look. I cannot prove that this is some kind of "global conspiracy".
Call it a hunch.
As I have posted here previously...
Where is the catastrophic sea level rise?
Where are the catastrophic glacial meltings?
The introductory video from the Copenhagen Summit portrayed little children being stranded and inundated by the ravages of human induced climate change.
Where is it??
In another main stream video, available at most video stores is the Top Gear "Polar Special".
In it, the Top Gear guys race to the north pole.
It is definitely Summer because it is daytime all the time.
The ice is perfectly thick, thank you.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/al-gore-north-pole-predictions-go-south
I hope I'm making my point.
I't VERY late now. There have been quite a number of red wines...
I look forward to CONSTRUCTIVE debate.
(not abusive)
Cheers everyone.

Mandas in post 18 you said among other things:

"SBN

Healthy McDonalds huh? What's next, low calorie chocolate?

On a more serious note, I just wanted to let you know about the 'Science and Public Policy Institute' (SPPI), which is a fine body of denialists who are primarily funded by Exxon (obviously, no conflict of interest there)."

Can you please explain to SBN and myself the difference between TERI as in the company owned by the IPCC boss and Tata Energy Research Institute. You know the one that owns power companies (including oil and gas), steel companies, automobile companies, chemical companies etc, throughout India and Asia.

And is there any reason why the boss of the IPCC was so keen on India being considered as a developing nation rather than a developed nation in the lead up to COP15?

Take your time.

[quote]Can anyone tell me if the graph (you know the one where you are asked to use the grey matter between your ears) is flawed, fraudulent, incorrect?[/quote]

that grey matter line pretty much tells you the seriousness of the publication...

michael

"....Mandas, I agree with you that Telstra is the "bully-boy" that was being run by that "contract-journeyman/fly-by-nighter/wombat" who "eats, roots, and leaves", but I think we disagree on the role of K Rudd...."

I am not sure why you think we disagree on the role of the PM, because I made no mention of the role of the PM in my post - only of the role of Telstra.

But since you have made the point, I have to say that I am completely disgusted with the role of the government regarding the ETS. Whilst I do not have any particular enthusiasm for the ETS as designed by the government (it was a VERY flawed plan and probably would not have provided much in the way of carbon reduction), the fact that the government has shelved any efforts in this area because it would have required a bit of work has alienated a lot of people - me included. With a bit of political negotiating with the Greens, Nick Xenophon and some of the dissident Liberals like Malcolm Turnbull, I am sure the government could have achieved something. But as it is, they have just lost a lot of political support from a lot of people, and if Bob Brown is smart enough he will be able to capture a lot of that support at the next election. Australians who are smart enough to understand that climate change is a fact, and who don't subscribe to the moronic global conspiracy theory don't have a lot of options in this regard. Tony Abbott?? You would have to be kidding!!

And I am going to ask you WTF you are talking about with this quote:

"...(Wait a minute! "Moral" challenge? What about "Scientific" challenge"???) To me, it proves the meaningLESSness of it all from an environmental point of view, and the meaningFULLness of it from a political point of view. I have posted many times before about how I think the entire AGW movement is politically motivated..."

You appear to be saying that, because the government has shelved efforts to introduce an ETS, that somehow confirms that AGW is meaningless from a scientific perspective. And to be frank, that is probably the stupidest statement i have ever read in my entire life. Maybe you could explain it to all of us here, because I for one am unable to understand how a government policy change invalidates the validity of decades of research by thousands of scientists.

But maybe its because I am looking in all the wrong places for my scientific literature. For years, I have been reading peer reviewed work by respected scientists, when as you have quite rightly pointed out, all I had to do was watch 'Top Gear' (which I love by the way - but I have never thought of using it as a source of scientific information on climate change; silly me!!).

And I have seen the corporation - but I must have missed the part where it demonstrates that the science of climate change is flawed. Could you let me know EXACTLY in the 'documentary' it is please?

And finally - as you asked at the end "...I hope I am making my point..". If your point is to demonstrate that you have no grasp of science, that you confuse science with politics, and that you think 'Top Gear' is a great place from which to draw scientific conclusions on climate change; then yes, you have made it very well.

You appear to be saying that, because the government has shelved efforts to introduce an ETS, that somehow confirms that AGW is meaningless from a scientific perspective.

Paul . . . Paul . . . hello?

Did you read this, Paul in MN? Do you see the analogy in what we've been joshing about?

Thank you, Mandas.

(Maybe this should be switched to the "Kyoto is Ineffective" thread.)

It's PaulinMI, but I don't see your point?