The Greens must be routed from the Senate

[idlewhile]

Voting Green is just an exercise in futility. They are a destructive force & should be reduced to the minority they are & the few they represent.

Voting Green for the Senate is a spoiler tactic by the disgruntled left & should be seen for what it is.

All traces of the massive failure of the Labor party must be eradicated & the work to repair the country & heart & soul of the people must begin.

The outright ruination of Labor for getting into bed with this toxic few has brought Labor to it's knees.

IT'S TIME, yes ITS TIME for a competent & responsible government to take over our great country. People are eager to vote with hope & joy that at last, they can have some hope for the future.

[iamanark]

LOL .

.

"It's Time" was the most successful political slogan used by the Labor Party in 1972

.

So you drumming up support for whom ?

.

I'm confused ... LOL

.

“It’s Time” is arguably the most famous political slogan in Australian political history. -

.

See more at: http://whitlamdismissal.com/government/its-time#sthash.Q2LIPFQQ.dpuf

[lakeland27]

---

@monman12 wrote:

LL: ".......that the Greens will get my senate vote. they are the only party with a handle on our rapidly deteriorating climate......."
 
"rapidly deteriorating" is a statement at odds with any current scientific method LL, there needs to be demonstrable  historical climatic variation outside of historical recorded meteorological data/noise for the theory to be totally scientifically accepted.

"the only party with a handle" Overlooking that Australia could double, or cease, its GHG emissions, and it would not be noticeable on a global scale.

or ?

How about: 

---

other countries (including california which has the lions share of the US population) have schemes or have them in the works. of course one country cannot do it alone. but if nobody went ahead on your reasoning , there would be no action taken anywhere.

issues of such importance can be implemented globally, first comes locally. you aren't a flat earth type, so what would you suggest as an alternate approach ? people are quick to criticise, but seem to stumble when it comes to producing a better approach 

[spotweldersfriend]

.....the Stone Age Party

[monman12]

LL: ".....other countries (including california which has the lions share of the US population) have schemes or have them in the works...."

It would be good if the politicians actually presented  (if they understand) meaningful scientific facts LL. e.g. you mention California.
"The Bay Area’s target is to reduce per-capita carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 7 percent by 2020 and by 15 percent by 2035."

That sounds admirable, however by 2020 the CA population will have grown by 10% (4,000,000) so the actual CO2 output for all CA vehicles will be approximately 1% greater than it is today, and the Bay a little higher (all other factors unchanged)

LL: "so what would you suggest as an alternate approach ?"

The Greens narrow approach is fine for them, and once was a populist  topic,  but the general public know very little of the sciences (and politics) involved, and the Greens seem removed from science/reality.

Accept that Australia  has negligible effect on world  atmospheric GHG concentration

Accept that Australia  has negligible effect on world thinking apropos GHG emissions.

Accept that world  atmospheric GHG/CO2 concentrations are steadily rising,  due to population growth and 3rd world  economic growth and increasing per capita power consumption, and will continue to do so.

Accept nuclear power generation.

Insist that we use  natural gas for power production  as well as exporting it.

etc, etc.

Finally accept what is inevitable:  annual CO2 increase = annual global temperature  increase = climatic variation and all things associated with that, AND then plan for all that will eventuate from these events.

nɥºɾ

[monman12]

Kyoto was in 1997.

If you study the CO2 concentration trend you will notice it is actually increasing.

I will accept the argument that without all the (hot air) talk fests the slope might have been steeper (positive), but so what,  the trend is positive, increasing, and the results, negative.

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

---

@monman12 wrote:

Kyoto was in 1997.

If you study the CO2 concentration trend you will notice it is actually increasing.

I will accept the argument that without all the (hot air) talk fests the slope might have been steeper (positive), but so what,  the trend is positive, increasing, and the results, negative.

nɥºɾ

---

so any attempt to reverse/slow is ill advised, pointless ?  on that fundemental point i disagree. a properly informed public would help immeasurably, but that is hard to see at this point in time.

[monman12]

LL: "so any attempt to reverse/slow is ill advised, pointless ?  on that fundemental point i disagree."

LL,  I  ceded that point when I wrote:

"I will accept the argument that without all the (hot air) talk fests the slope might have been steeper (positive),"

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

---

@monman12 wrote:

LL: "so any attempt to reverse/slow is ill advised, pointless ?  on that fundemental point i disagree."

LL,  I  ceded that point@ when I wrote:

"I will accept the argument that without all the (hot air) talk fests the slope might have been steeper (positive),"

nɥºɾ

---

 my comprehension skills aren't what they were

[***super_nova***]

---

@monman12 wrote:

 Australia  has negligible effect on world  atmospheric GHG concentration

nɥºɾ

---

Australia has one of the highest per capita emissions in the world, yet we are in unique position for developing alternative energy sources.  Substitute LNP for GOP.  Germany is getting their power from solar (households selling power) and wind.

[silverfaun]

That is global warming propaganda