Who is responsible for the Australian Bush fires - ITS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE...

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess I'm referring to people I see taking a car to drive their kids to school when the 10 minute journey can be walked in 20. Or those who say that money spent on bettering our environment will just cost them more taxes. These people don't want to give up their comforts to benefit others.

You don't pay attention do you? It used to be that you could let your kids walk to school like that, but these days, someone will notice your children walking and call CPS on you for letting them do that. I'm not even joking. We sometimes leave our kid at home for about 15 minutes with a phone while we run to get gas or something because he's old enough we think to handle himself that long, but there are places where you could get charged for child endangerment for that.

There is even a movement for parents who let their children take more responsibility. It's called free-range parenting.

Truthfully, ours rides the bus, but in this neighborhood, there is a strong group of kids with about four or five boys all in the same age range who regularly play together. If the school was about 2 to 3 blocks closer and we could get all the parents on board for it, I'd have zero problems with them all walking in a gang. It's a good-sized group for it. The school is just a bit far out for it to make it really workable, and they'd be walking along a road that's crazy dangerous with speeding drivers.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess I'm referring to people I see taking a car to drive their kids to school when the 10 minute journey can be walked in 20. Or those who say that money spent on bettering our environment will just cost them more taxes. These people don't want to give up their comforts to benefit others.

You don't pay attention do you? It used to be that you could let your kids walk to school like that, but these days, someone will notice your children walking and call CPS on you for letting them do that. I'm not even joking. We sometimes leave our kid at home for about 15 minutes with a phone while we run to get gas or something because he's old enough we think to handle himself that long, but there are places where you could get charged for child endangerment for that.

There is even a movement for parents who let their children take more responsibility. It's called free-range parenting.

Truthfully, ours rides the bus, but in this neighborhood, there is a strong group of kids with about four or five boys all in the same age range who regularly play together. If the school was about 2 to 3 blocks closer and we could get all the parents on board for it, I'd have zero problems with them all walking in a gang. It's a good-sized group for it. The school is just a bit far out for it to make it really workable, and they'd be walking along a road that's crazy dangerous with speeding drivers.

Believe me I do pay attention. Enough to notice that schools in my city actively encourage kids to walk to school rather than be driven.

a reply to: daftpink

I guess I'm referring to people I see taking a car to drive their kids to school when the 10 minute journey can be walked in 20. Or those who say that money spent on bettering our environment will just cost them more taxes. These people don't want to give up their comforts to benefit others.

Well, I guess you're referring to me then. I'm the guy who circles the WalMart parking lot for 20 minutes to find a close parking space. Why? Oh, should I mention I am a heart patient, declared disabled by the SSA (finally), walk with a cane now, and won't get my handicap placard for a couple more weeks? I doubt I would make it across the entire parking lot before collapsing.

I also don't want you taking my tax dollars to fight an invisible, odorless, colorless gas that in tiny minute quantities will end all life on earth (but which is also known to be responsible for all life on earth). You're correct there. I'm on a fixed income and I like to do wild and crazy things... like eat regular meals.

Now, will you tell me again how a few less atoms of carbon dioxide will improve your quality of life more than paying more taxes will harm mine? I didn't see your answer to that.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
So this wasn't climate change - yay for those in denial.
The climate has been changed as a result of this event.
It doesn't matter. Our house is in disarray and it has been for a while, and it will get worse unless everyone can agree and make some real changes.

Here's is what I can't understand about climate change. Why are people so against it? I mean even if everything about climate change is false, isn't it still a great idea to take care of our environment? And yes, the Earth will always take care of itself that's true, but don't we want to at least try to keep our home clean and uncluttered while we are here? If we had taken good care of the Earth can you imagine how beautiful it would be and how awesome our relationship with it would be?

It's stupid. It's like people talking about how utterly devastated they are about the loss of over half a million animals and ordering steak for dinner. Wake the # up people.

You're spot on. Why be against making changes to better our planet and quality of life for many?

So far the only 'reasoning' I've seen is that it will cost too much money (the horror!) and that it will impact on people's comfortable lives, such as being asked to drive less (such unimaginable horror!). Usually the same people saying this are happy for governments to spend billions per year on wars...

The premise is wrong. Man made CO 2 is not a pollution and not the cause of temperatures in the Earth. The sun is mostly responsible for the temperatures and climate change. The environmentalists have engaged in Eco terrorism to prove their point. Politicians are using this as a ruse to raise taxes. Bureaucratic regulations do more harm than good and we are even going into a Solar Minimum ( sun related) and the ideas of Gates to block the sun are outrageous. Please read up on Agenda to understand what is really going on.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: daftpink

I guess I'm referring to people I see taking a car to drive their kids to school when the 10 minute journey can be walked in 20. Or those who say that money spent on bettering our environment will just cost them more taxes. These people don't want to give up their comforts to benefit others.

Well, I guess you're referring to me then. I'm the guy who circles the WalMart parking lot for 20 minutes to find a close parking space. Why? Oh, should I mention I am a heart patient, declared disabled by the SSA (finally), walk with a cane now, and won't get my handicap placard for a couple more weeks? I doubt I would make it across the entire parking lot before collapsing.

I also don't want you taking my tax dollars to fight an invisible, odorless, colorless gas that in tiny minute quantities will end all life on earth (but which is also known to be responsible for all life on earth). You're correct there. I'm on a fixed income and I like to do wild and crazy things... like eat regular meals.

Now, will you tell me again how a few less atoms of carbon dioxide will improve your quality of life more than paying more taxes will harm mine? I didn't see your answer to that.

TheRedneck

Nope I obviously wasn't referring to you, as I stated I was referring to able bodied people who are simply too lazy. I've worked with people who need support to manage conditions like yours and know how important access and cars are so really dont see why you'd think I was meaning someone like you based on what I said.

I'm on a limited income too but many many aren't and it those that I see who do not want to give anything to helping improve the environment.

a reply to: daftpink

One lesson I've learned in life is that you cannot force people to be other than who they are.

The only person you can absolutely control is yourself. Be what you want for the world, and hope others will follow as they can.

The problem with trying to impose what you think is the perfect solution from the top down is that you never know who you will be hurting disproportionately because everyone's situation is different. Sure, some might be able to bear the burden of any new taxes levied, but there will be many, many others who could not and might be outright ruined by them. Sure some might be able to modify their comfortable routines, the ones you have such disdain for, but there could, and likely would be, many, many others who would suffer devastating, life-changing consequences as a result.

Look at how Obamacare fell out because it was such a top-down, global imposition on everyone. Some were helped, but many, many others were ruined outright or had devastating, deeply life-changing consequences in their lives as a result of it.

Personally, had my husband's company dropped their health insurance, something we lived in complete fear of, we would have been bankrupt. No matter how we ran the numbers, we lost. There was no way we could have absorbed the cost of the mandated policy, not even the cheapest one. We were both "too rich" to gain subsidy, and too poor to pay for it. And where I have a chronic condition that sends me to a neurologist, we couldn't afford to *not* have insurance either and simply pay the penalty.

We even considered legally divorcing, and not even then was it feasible.

Our only hope would have been for me to quit the job I currently have and to load up on a bunch of pert-time jobs and hope we could squeak enough that way to cover the cost of the policy alone, and that's all I would have been doing.

a reply to: ketsuko

If something is implemented effectively such as a simple tax increase on high earners (and by high I mean 6 digits) then those less well off wouldn't suffer any loss or hardship and rightly so.

Obamacare is for another thread I think! I feel for you and others in that situation. We have the nhs which isn't perfect but doesn't throw up situations like yours.

My original point was addressing those that I see daily use their cars for silly little journeys and they don't care about emissions and have become 'pampered'.

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: ketsuko

If something is implemented effectively such as a simple tax increase on high earners (and by high I mean 6 digits) then those less well off wouldn't suffer any loss or hardship and rightly so.

Obamacare is for another thread I think! I feel for you and others in that situation. We have the nhs which isn't perfect but doesn't throw up situations like yours.

My original point was addressing those that I see daily use their cars for silly little journeys and they don't care about emissions and have become 'pampered'.

Again, how do you determine "silly"?

You've already had one poster tell you that what may seem "silly" actually has a purpose for him. Some bureaucrat isolated in his or her cubicle writing these regulations doesn't have the time or ability to check every individual's situation and make that call.

I used the Obamacare stuff because the bureaucrats who wrote those rules and made those formulas up considered them to be fine for everyone, but they were not.

That's the point -- the rules as written always hurt some disproportionately because top down edicts do that. They step on some in their rush to impose and dictate what someone somewhere considers to be the "best" solutions according to stacks of tables and charts.

If the one-size-fits-all plan doesn't work for you because you are an outlier for one reason or another, then you are sacrificed to the needs of the many whether you volunteer for it or not.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: ketsuko

If something is implemented effectively such as a simple tax increase on high earners (and by high I mean 6 digits) then those less well off wouldn't suffer any loss or hardship and rightly so.

Obamacare is for another thread I think! I feel for you and others in that situation. We have the nhs which isn't perfect but doesn't throw up situations like yours.

My original point was addressing those that I see daily use their cars for silly little journeys and they don't care about emissions and have become 'pampered'.

Again, how do you determine "silly"?

You've already had one poster tell you that what may seem "silly" actually has a purpose for him. Some bureaucrat isolated in his or her cubicle writing these regulations doesn't have the time or ability to check every individual's situation and make that call.

I used the Obamacare stuff because the bureaucrats who wrote those rules and made those formulas up considered them to be fine for everyone, but they were not.

That's the point -- the rules as written always hurt some disproportionately because top down edicts do that. They step on some in their rush to impose and dictate what someone somewhere considers to be the "best" solutions according to stacks of tables and charts.

If the one-size-fits-all plan doesn't work for you because you are an outlier for one reason or another, then you are sacrificed to the needs of the many whether you volunteer for it or not.

Again, as I stated 'silly' unnecessary journeys that can be walked like driving kids to school when they can easily walk the short journey - better for their health and the environment. Its a problem here. Roads get congested, trees and buildings are blackened, kids get obese. There are active campaigns to encourage people to walk, cycle or make use of buses and trains or even car share. I think maybe you don't get how it is in some UK cities. Some people with cars become lazy and entitled.

a reply to: daftpink

I don't think you get how it is in the US either.

Our cities are much more sprawled, our states, just states, are larger than many European nations. We have more distance to go than you do.

Compare Kansas to UK. The entire UK is narrower across than my drive from Kansas City to visit my parents.

The headmaster at the private school we sent my son to for two years on a shoestring with aid was from Scotland. He talked about taking a trip to Dodge city which might be like driving from the very tip of the widest part of the Southern end of the isle to opposite tip of the Southern end, roughly.

Distances matter. Our cities are more sprawled because they can be.

a reply to: CthruU

Stop donating money & clothing. These bushfires happen here in Australia EVERY YEAR. People do have house insurance.

For some reason the media has decided to pretend that this is the first time anything like this has happened. Climate change folk are using this annual event to push their views. It's hilarious that celebrities are donating money. Why aren't they helping people living in poverty instead ? Why aren't they donating anonymously ? Do they really need to send out press releases ?

It's a mad scramble to get your face in front of the media. And for the record the vast majority of bushfires are started by lightning strikes. A few are started by arsonists, a few are started by burn-offs gone wrong.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: daftpink

I don't think you get how it is in the US either.

Our cities are much more sprawled, our states, just states, are larger than many European nations. We have more distance to go than you do.

Compare Kansas to UK. The entire UK is narrower across than my drive from Kansas City to visit my parents.

The headmaster at the private school we sent my son to for two years on a shoestring with aid was from Scotland. He talked about taking a trip to Dodge city which might be like driving from the very tip of the widest part of the Southern end of the isle to opposite tip of the Southern end, roughly.

Distances matter. Our cities are more sprawled because they can be.

Amen to that! Here in the rural Northwest, it can even be dangerous for children to walk to school due to the temperatures. When the temperature drops to -18, one can get frostbite in a matter of minutes. Not to mention many live on or near farms and ranches and the buses are necessary to transport the children to schools due to long distances. One size does not fit all.

Sounds like bored kids exploring their pyro urges. I don’t suspect any grand conspiracy tricking kids into lighting fires. Just more politics at play.


a reply to: maddy21

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: ketsuko

If something is implemented effectively such as a simple tax increase on high earners (and by high I mean 6 digits) then those less well off wouldn't suffer any loss or hardship and rightly so.

Obamacare is for another thread I think! I feel for you and others in that situation. We have the nhs which isn't perfect but doesn't throw up situations like yours.

My original point was addressing those that I see daily use their cars for silly little journeys and they don't care about emissions and have become 'pampered'.

Again, how do you determine "silly"?

You've already had one poster tell you that what may seem "silly" actually has a purpose for him. Some bureaucrat isolated in his or her cubicle writing these regulations doesn't have the time or ability to check every individual's situation and make that call.

I used the Obamacare stuff because the bureaucrats who wrote those rules and made those formulas up considered them to be fine for everyone, but they were not.

That's the point -- the rules as written always hurt some disproportionately because top down edicts do that. They step on some in their rush to impose and dictate what someone somewhere considers to be the "best" solutions according to stacks of tables and charts.

If the one-size-fits-all plan doesn't work for you because you are an outlier for one reason or another, then you are sacrificed to the needs of the many whether you volunteer for it or not.

Again, as I stated 'silly' unnecessary journeys that can be walked like driving kids to school when they can easily walk the short journey - better for their health and the environment. Its a problem here. Roads get congested, trees and buildings are blackened, kids get obese. There are active campaigns to encourage people to walk, cycle or make use of buses and trains or even car share. I think maybe you don't get how it is in some UK cities. Some people with cars become lazy and entitled.

Thats all very nice, but since the abduction of little Adam ( I think he was 8) in the early 80’s, parents are generally not as inclined to leave their kids to walk unaccompanied and even teens can be abducted. Things here have been very different for decades since I was a kid and could ride my bike all over without fear. It’s just not even a question with regard to conserving energy.
Aside from that, the Agenda 21/2030 insistence on not eating beef and so on is eco-fascism .... not fun and no one who loves Liberty would wish to submit to that. By the way, Peak Oil was really based on production of known reserves and not of what the earth is capable of yielding. We don’t even know for sure if “fossil fuels” are really from dinosaur fossils. It is not necessarily a finite resource as presented by the Peak Oil theory. Also, if you really insist on limiting your personal use of petroleum based product, you can start with things like toothbrushes and computer components. 🤗

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

The guy that created the hockey stick graph refused to show his evidence in court.

According to whom?

Certainly not you.

But it's cows burping causing these fires ........

Human ECO-TERRORISM is a bigger issue than any climate change .

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: maddy21

We have to find alternatives to fossil fuel. All the carbon being put into the atmosphere is raising global temperatures making deserts and dry areas dryer. Now these areas are very susceptible to massive fires. California has had raging fires for years. It's almost biblical.

Burning gasoline causes pollution. Pollution is bad. Simple logic.

Conservative though I am, I believe in anthropogenic global warming. There’s no doubt that the parts per billion of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than they’ve ever been. And if you understand that heat in our atmosphere (warmed 24/7 by the sun) can only escape by radiating into outer space, you realize why anything that slows heat transfer from atmosphere to space is bad news.

The good news is people around the world are working on an enormous number of energy projects to replace fossil fuels. I think fossil fuels will be replaced sometime this century the way things are going, and humanity will survive. I’m not so sanguine about millions of other species, which saddens me deeply because I’m a nature lover. Thankfully, there are things like seed banks to save plant species and breeding programs and sperm banks to protect the existence of many animal species.

As I recall, many of the top scientists warning about climate change said we reached a tipping point several years ago, meaning that even if we had stopped all our greenhouse gas emissions from that point on, global temps would still continue to rise for many decades.

So I think it’s probably too late to prevent a lot of extinctions and other unpleasant occurrences, such as increased wildfires, extinction of many species, famine due to drought and sea level rise. The have-nots of this world, like China and India, want First World living standards and our concern about the environment isn’t going to stop them. China alone is responsible for 30 percent of emissions.

But I also think we’ll muddle through this somehow and develop safe nuclear (preferably thorium) and fusion power, possibly even something like cold fusion. If we get lucky and develop some type of revolutionary power source in the near future, we might even be able to remove enough CO2 and methane from the air to prevent much of the inevitable warming.

What really terrifies me is the huge amount of methane locked in clathrates in permafrost and the ocean floor. Methane is supposedly 50-100 times more effective at slowing heat convection through the atmosphere than CO2. If a lot of it starts getting released due to warming we could have runaway global warming that just keeps feeding on itself, causing ever more methane to be released as it keeps getting warmer. We would be well and truly f***** then.

a reply to: daftpink

Roads get congested, trees and buildings are blackened, kids get obese.

Carbon dioxide is not blackening trees or buildings. Carbon dioxide is colorless and invisible. No one has ever seen a molecule of carbon dioxide.

Don't know about where you are, but we have some pretty damn strict restrictions on gasoline, which are the reason the cost is so high. That means almost no pollution coming out of the exhaust pipe. That black stuff you are talking about is probably soot... unburned carbon and a few organic oils (hydrocarbons) mixed in to make it sticky. I'd be checking the cars coming through... they must be seriously out of tune.

I'll agree about the increasing congestion; I even see it out here. Yesterday I saw four cars in a row.

As for kids being obese... I never walked to school when I was young... would have taken all day. I was also never obese. The biggest problem most parents have with raising obese kids is that the kids don't do anything the rest of the time. They sit in the house and suck down junk food. Try addressing that problem.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

As for kids being obese... I never walked to school when I was young... would have taken all day. I was also never obese. The biggest problem most parents have with raising obese kids is that the kids don't do anything the rest of the time. They sit in the house and suck down junk food. Try addressing that problem.

Quoted for truth!

Kids these days are far less active than they used to be.

And it isn't just at home that they sit around doing nothing except texting or playing video games, schools are canceling active gym and outside, free play recess too. There are too many other things they need to learn see. It's not enough to teach to the test, but they also have to cram in the latest social engineering too, like all 57 genders and what-not.

And no one bothers to feed their kids properly on healthy food because cooking be hard, yo! Much easier to hit McD's drive through and feed 'em impossible processed crap.

originally posted by: kingparrot
I would say that these threads are propagated by the coal industry which hangs over Australia’s political landscape but to what end? I could understand Facebook being targeted but why ATS. I wouldn’t of thought many people would come to ATS to have their thoughts changed on the subject of climate change, it’s more of an echo chamber than anything else when it comes to that particular subject. a reply to: EvilAxis

i don't think ATS is being targeted, as such. i think the major demographic here just happens to have a lot of overlap with the net the coal industry/murdoch empire is casting. Same way Fox news and popular right wing youtubers don't target ATS, but sure as isht dripping downhill those same stale talking points find their way here before long.

i'd planned this response before i finished the thread and given the way it deteriorates into a load of extreme boomer "kids don't play outside enough how dare you tell me how to live" junk by the end, i'd say that prime Fox boomer demographic is definitely holding strong.