The Sharks money woes.

[Phantar]

All the switched on rock lobster's are getting very excited, eyeing off the shore line for potential investment properties to lease out to star fish.

I understand that Spongebob Squarepants is eyeing off a beautiful property along Ocean Street at Narrabeen, which when the sea levels rise, will afford Spongey and Patrick a beautiful wet bar just above the current dune line.

 

[eagle-rock08]

So how many opinions do you want?

And precisely which scientists do you accuse of falsifying their research in order to gain more funding? (It appears you are not accusing those who are paid by the fossil fuel industry.)

In answer to your points:

I am accusing no one. I simply do not believe it. I simply believe that the warming is natural and while mankind may be contributing to it he is not the cause of it. Just remember we are talking about carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide. These are different and should not be mutually inter changeable. Which they seem to be at the moment.

With regard to the fuel companies - its interesting to note that originally a lot of cars were powered by electricity. But for some reason they were never developed when Henry Ford started mass production of the T model ford. I wonder why.

I have seen compressed air cars that can do around 50 klms an hour for 200 klms. I wonder why these cars are not mass produced for city driving.

Also there are several types of cheap wind-mills that can power houses with electricity along with solar panels that could reduce the cost of electricity to almost nil. So if there was a desire to reduce our carbon footprint we could do it by wind and solar and electric cars.

But where is the money for large industry in that? So I say follow the money trail and if you are more successful than I you might find an 'inconvenient lie' is behind all of this. How much money did a certain US presidential candidate make on his whirl-wind lecture tour when talking about global warming? I bet he didn't do it for nothing.

I cite the CFC and the ozone layer back in the 80's for my skepticism. CFC's were okay while ever the manufacturing company had the royalty to manufacture them. But as the royalty was coming to an end it appeared that CFC's were indeed harmful to the environment and were outlawed now replaced by HFC's. I wonder who has the patent on that now? And I wonder if the patent is finished will HFC's be seen as harmful to the environment in the future?

Further to the holes in the ozone layer at both poles - is it a natural occurrence? I say yes. But for many years scientists said they were caused by CFC's.

Are you a scientist SeaEagleRock8? If so I'd like to debate it with you on a more convenient forum than this. And if you are a scientist SeaEagleRock8 you'd probably run rings around me and I apologise if I seem to be running you profession down. But I say what is today's truth is often tomorrows lie.

But alas I may be seen as a heretic a non-believer for not simply accepting the modern climate change mantra.

 

[manlyfan76]

Carbon tax, global warming, its a way for the rich to stay rich and for the rich to keep the poor poor. developed nations made their wealth by burnig fossil fuels without care and had cheap fuel to power industry and agriculture. If your rich how do you stay rich? by keeping the poor poor ( think World bank). By implementing a carbon tax for developing nations (China , India) you make them pay alot more for what you got cheap last century. Thus they don't get as rich as you as easily as you did and in comparisson you have done better, think of Kerry Packer buying and selling t.v stations. Sure tax whats bad but not only when it suits the 1% of us.

---

p.s. as Bill Hicks said "You are now free, to do as your told".

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Eagle-rock08 you show a healthy scepticism in some respects – but oddly you then mix that in with blind faith and gut feeling. I'm no scientist but I’d vastly prefer scientific analysis over the latter two approaches in matters like this.

One minute you are totally adamant:

Rising sea levels are a joke, it won't happen. It is all BS in my opinion.

The next minute you are urging everyone to be open-minded.

You say you are not accusing anyone – so what exactly did you mean by the following?

Just remember scientists are people too. They have mortgages, wives, husbands and kids. Just like you. They do need to get funding to survive, feed their kids and pay their mortgages. Just like you. How can they sure up their funding? (I suppose bad news sells better than good news.)

The most bizarre aspect of your meanderings is that you (correctly) urge us to 'follow the money trail' but seem unable yourself to see where that is leading. Can't see the forest for the trees?

You are right to be suspicious of those who'd have us blindly accept current 'truths'. But scientific method is founded on empiricism and, ultimately, on logic. EWES or no EWES, without logic we may as well all be sheep.

 

[mickyj]

It would be easier to believe the small few who say there is no climate change then the 1000's who all agree it is a fact and man made.

It would be the greatest scam ever is all these experts all over the world agree to it and would not the only few who speak out (and it is only a few) would say they refuse to agree to the lie. To say make the point they are all trying to trick the world for their own benefit would get more people paying attention to their point but never heard one of them even siggest just a thing.

 

[Moops]

I just don't have the energy to argue any more...These man-made global warming advocates, it is like arguing with the communists in the 40's!!!

 

[anthonyb1965]

Have to somewhat agree with "eagle-rock08" - Is mother nature having her 10,000 year spin? There is plenty of cash about for "environment friendly" options, how did these companies suddenly find a market for these products; Must of been the "scientific information"?? In addition, carbon tax on public transport - where did this analysis generate from?

I just cannot believe the world is doomed when the "market" is ripe, so to speak!!! I DO believe we have to be better at looking after our world but draw the line with the scientist speak on a "theory". Remember the "vegemite causes cancer theory"??

Sorry to dribble on

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I just don't have the energy to argue any more...These man-made global warming advocates, it is like arguing with the communists in the 40's!!!

Wow if you were arguing back in the 40s it's no wonder you are running out of energy

 

[Hamster Huey]

Read any of the ClimateGate emails (both the first and second releases) to see vested interests are not exclusive to the 'Big Oil' regime.

Truth is that the level of human impact on the broader climate is not accepted as definitive within the scientific community, with much, much more research over a longer period required.

For all the talk in the late-90's about what we were going to face in a decade, only for those forecasts (provided by models that generate results based on human input) to fail, suggests that blindly forming opinions on the most vocal PoVs, as opposed to digging around yourself for more balance, may better equip you to understand what the current situation is, and how much of an unknown the future is.

 

[Cameron]

Carbon tax, global warming, its a way for the rich to stay rich and for the rich to keep the poor poor. developed nations made their wealth by burnig fossil fuels without care and had cheap fuel to power industry and agriculture. If your rich how do you stay rich? by keeping the poor poor ( think World bank). By implementing a carbon tax for developing nations (China , India) you make them pay alot more for what you got cheap last century. Thus they don't get as rich as you as easily as you did and in comparisson you have done better, think of Kerry Packer buying and selling t.v stations. Sure tax whats bad but not only when it suits the 1% of us.

---

p.s. as Bill Hicks said "You are now free, to do as your told".

---

Lol bill hicks !!!! 100% of all non smokers Will die. What a funny prick he was.

 

[eagle-rock08]

SeaEagleRock8, thanks for your comments. This is a sensitive topic I know and is very close to your heart. So you are a layman just as I am. We have opposing ideas and believe what we want to believe. Isn't it great that we ostensibly live in a democracy where opposing views are tolerated. Sorry if I meander. Word economics was never my strong suit. I'll just keep meandering on if you don't mind.

To the others such as Hampster Huey vested interests are what I am alluding to. Thank you for pointing that out so well.

AnthonyB1965 - I agree with you and thank you.

Mickj sometimes its easy to believe and sometimes I find myself wanting to believe. But I cannot with the little research I have done, only reading a few books and articles by the way nothing major but not simply believing 30 second sound bites of news. Do you know I was in Canada in April earlier this year. I was listening to the equivalent of ABC radio over there. They mentioned that the hole in the ozone layer in the northern hemisphere had increased over the winter and blamed it directly on CFC's.

Manlyfan76 seems to sum it up - it seems to be a way to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. Like most laws they favour the rich over the poor. (For example its illegal to sleep under bridges. The wealthy would never think of such a thing but the poor may need to do it out of necessity. And because they have insufficient money they are breaking the law.)

Thanks folks for your time and your comments. It is most enjoyable to listen and to learn from others.

Anyway I think this argument has run its course for now - thanks to all those that took the time to read and comment. May we all live in a peaceful world without war and EWES (although that would make the rams very unhappy I suppose) and all have a merry Christmas or whatever your religion requires to celebrate.

 

[DSM5]

Eagle-rock08, have you seen 'Who killed the electric car'? A disturbing doco on the power of the oil elites. And I'm old enough to remember the largest electric tram network in the Southern hemisphere, right here in Sydney. Torn up by the polies after pressure from the oil industry. Interesting that the tracks were dug up in the weeks that followed their demise, so that no returns for them. On the climate change debate, I always hedge on the conservative side and would like to see our dependence on fossil fuels decrease and our pursuit of materialism decline. the roads are already choked and getting more so. If that would assist the planet's survival for my grandchildren, then all good. And I'm not sure we live in a democracy any longer 08.

 

[Frank]

After skimming through this thread I have come to the conclusion that climate change can be averted if the Sharks can overcome their money woes. wtf!

 

[Rusty]

After skimming through this thread I have come to the conclusion that climate change can be averted if the Sharks can overcome their money woes. wtf!

We are screwed then. The sharks are done as far as I am hearing, and I highly doubt that in the future the IC will be willing to help them out, not without a move to Adelaide...

If the development isn't approved I don't see how they go on, because I was reading last year some time that Wespac could already call in the receivers on them, if it were not for the talk that this development may solve the problem.

 

[The Eagle]

This sux, the sharks fans deserve better....

 

[mozgrame]

Maybe we could pass the hat around for the Sharks. Or would that be flakey? (get it?)

 

[DSM5]

Mozgrame, you don't have to hint, we're all adult here. I actually would like to see the Sharks go to Adelaide. Another place to travel to. The foods good as is the wine and it's only a few hours by plane. Better than getting wet and miserable down at Gummie Park.

 

[Stevo]

Where did the Sharks moving to Adelaide things come from? Wish i started that rumour. The last venture into Adelaide was a massive success.

 

[manlyfan76]

Carbon tax, global warming, its a way for the rich to stay rich and for the rich to keep the poor poor. developed nations made their wealth by burnig fossil fuels without care and had cheap fuel to power industry and agriculture. If your rich how do you stay rich? by keeping the poor poor ( think World bank). By implementing a carbon tax for developing nations (China , India) you make them pay alot more for what you got cheap last century. Thus they don't get as rich as you as easily as you did and in comparisson you have done better, think of Kerry Packer buying and selling t.v stations. Sure tax whats bad but not only when it suits the 1% of us.

---

p.s. as Bill Hicks said "You are now free, to do as your told".

---

Lol bill hicks !!!! 100% of all non smokers Will die. What a funny prick he was.

---

Cambo he was awesum. Caught a special of him on ABC 2 the other night, We could do with his voice now! A ledgend of comedy.

 

[DSM5]

They'd get more followers in Adelaide than through the turnstiles of Gummie Park. Where do you think they should go Stevo?