<< FISK IS ALWAYS WRONG ~ MAIN ~ "MORE TO DO WITH FAITH THAN SCIENCE" >>
50, 60, 80, 90 ...
We are committed to a 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, that’s Labor’s policy ...
If we take it seriously and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent in the next 30 years ...
We need, in the rich nations, a 90 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 ...
UPDATE. “What happened to 70?” asks Bonmot. Turns out 70 was hiding in a 2006 UK Telegraph piece:
Targets should be 70 per cent by 2030 and there is a real need for immediate action - including a climate change bill - in the next four years.
UPDATE II. Given the massive variation above, a puzzled filcan wonders: “Where is the ‘consensus’?”
We need, in the rich nations, a 90 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Whatchoo mean we, white man?
If we were to do that, we wouldn’t be rich nations anymore. Which is the point of the whole scam, of course.
Tell ya’ what,
MonboitMoonbat: You first.Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2007 04 08 at 01:28 PM • permalinkI agree, Barbara. Monbiot can achieve a 100% reducution in his carbon footprint with a handy tree, a stool, and a short length of rope.
As an added bonus, he can double as a bird feeder, and eventually serve as a yard ornament. Recycling is the way to go, y’know!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 04 08 at 01:52 PM • permalinkWhy are are these leftist fuckwits insisting we live a medieval hand-to-mouth existence one poor harvest away from mass starvation? WHY?
Who was the clueless columnist who remarked, approvingly, that the nation with the smallest per capita “carbon footprint” was Somalia (primarily because the average life expectancy at birth is 45, a point not mentioned in the scolding OpEd)?
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 04 08 at 02:17 PM • permalinkAnyone need an “are”? I seem to exceeded my quota in that last post.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 04 08 at 02:19 PM • permalinkHmmm.
A 90% reduction? He’s not talking about a 90% reduction in the *growth* of emissions is he? He’s talking about reducing existing emissions by 90%?
Well goodbye air conditioning, automobiles, supermarkets and a worthwhile economy.
I wonder how long he’d be in office if he were idiot enough to actually try it.
Posted by memomachine on 2007 04 08 at 02:57 PM • permalink50 60 80 90 are consecutive numbers that are (1) multiples of 10, and (2) appending “11” gives you a prime, eg. 5011 is prime.
The next term would be a 120% reduction, for any politician brave enough to suggest it.
I’m sure someone will cook up some loony scheme to become a net “carbon sink”, at which the “120% reduction” will come up.
Posted by Spiny Norman on 2007 04 08 at 03:26 PM • permalinkI demand an immediate 90% reduction in the quantity of Monbiot’s written and verbal ‘output’.
Posted by Crispytoast on 2007 04 08 at 03:48 PM • permalinkYou know, previous the-world-is-ending fads were kind of charming—people got to run around stocking up on things like beans and toilet paper and other items that would be scarce in the coming ice age/famine/population explosion/nuclear war—which gave idle hands something to do, made money for the people supplying the beans and whatnot, and were more-or-less harmless (this is exluding some facets of the environmental movement, such as the anti-DDT hysteria, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of human beings).
But this current call to stop moving, stop thinking, stop doing, stop producing, stop existing isn’t cute or fun. The Global Warming Movement is nothing more than an infantile response of moonbats worldwide to the fact that things just aren’t going their way—there’s a war on, and they are like a brat throwing himself on the floor in a fit while the bombs are falling because he doesn’t want to go into the bomb shelter. All life is carbon-based, so the best way of “reducing” carbon is to eliminate some living things. To the GW’ers I say: “After you, comrades.”
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 08 at 04:38 PM • permalinkMonbiot, if he is being honest with himself, would have to admit he is calling for the deaths of billions, and the blighting of the lives of those who remain.
I wonder if, in the years to come when global warming is exposed as a myth, Moonbat will have the good grace to admit his folly. Probably not, if the example of the equally disgusting Paul Ehrlich is anything to go by. Being a doomsaying Leftist Jeremiah means never having to say you’re sorry.
Posted by David Gillies on 2007 04 08 at 04:39 PM • permalinkSpiny, I’m afraid I can’t use any ‘ares’, but what with Talk Like A Pirate Day coming up again this year, I suggest you hoard any Aaaaarrrrhhhhhs you have until then.
Q. Why can’t US 15-year-olds go to see ‘Pirates of the Caribbean by themselves?
A. Because it’s rated “Aaaaarrrrrrhhhhh!”
And I’m pretty sure Algore’s claiming he is a carbon sink and as such his carbon footprint has been reduced by the required 120%.Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 04 08 at 04:41 PM • permalinkI’ll see that 120%, boys, and I’ll raise you.
(Pushes carbon chips into the middle of the table)
150%! By lunchtime tomorrow!Posted by SwinishCapitalist on 2007 04 08 at 05:04 PM • permalinkCarbon chips? Are those anything like cow chips?
Posted by Urbs in Horto on 2007 04 08 at 05:20 PM • permalinkThe only way that I would buy carbon credits was if a greenie developed sleeping credits. If I could transfer my tiredness to someone else. I only say this because I have been up all night watching the cricket and the golf (it being 8 AM).
Posted by satisfiedmind16 on 2007 04 08 at 06:04 PM • permalinkBreathe in O2 => exhale CO2
CO2 increasing => Global catastrophe
Solution => Breathe in CO2 = exhale O2
Some training required ...
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 04 08 at 06:18 PM • permalink#26 If you package this as a coherent and structured policy, you might be able to sell it to the Greens. They could demonstrate it before the next election. Perhaps a machine could be invented that does it for you.
Not quite on a Fremen scale, but the concept could be viable. Mechanical reclamation of all that precious O2 locked up in carbon-based voters!The only way that I would buy carbon credits was if a greenie developed sleeping credits. If I could transfer my tiredness to someone else. I only say this because I have been up all night watching the cricket and the golf (it being 9 AM).
Posted by satisfiedmind16 on 2007 04 08 at 06:41 PM • permalinkOnly slightly OT. Anyone with a spare 48 minutes and an interest in the current choice-less state of British politics, could do worse than watch this thought-provoking documentary on the questionable David Cameron.
Even George Monbiot (Mon-be-ot) turns up towards the end, skeptical of Dave’s eco-pandering.
UK politics rarely turns up on this blog, but if the mainstream news and some other websites are anything to go by, the decline of conservatism over there is nothing short of gut-wrenching.
It’s like some bizarre parody of the soviet five year plans with the faithful trying to out stakhanov each other with ridiculous (non) output figures.
Posted by eeniemeenie on 2007 04 08 at 07:43 PM • permalinkCome on, Tim, surely Monbiot’s call for a 90% reduction doesn’t count in this auction. Was his bid counter-signed by his power of attorney? Did his doctor sign an affidavit that, on this issue, Monbiot is legally sane?
Only people with credibility should be able to make a carbon cut bid. We will have to start the bidding again:So who wants to cut carbon emissions by 1% by 2050. That’s 1%. Anyone, easy target. Sorry Mr Garrett, you lost your credibility when you shook hands with Mark Latham and joined the Labor party. So it’s still 1%, will anyone bid 1%. No? Half a per cent? Can’t be easier than that, surely. Kevin, sorry mate, you lost your credibility long ago despite your mother pinning it to your shirt front. Evicted, forced to live in a car. Dear, oh, dear. So the offer is still open at half a per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050, who will bid half a per cent? Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. Did I hear half a per cent from you. This is more like it. A distinguished Norwegian marine biologist who wants to preserve the reefs and save the whale. What’s that, Ove. You’re Norwegian. Fuck the whales, did you say?
Wonder what happened to Peter Garrett’s salinity hysteria from 2002/3 when in an address to the National Press Club, the ever eternal alarmist wanted the government to spend $65 billion to fight the looming salinity catastrophe!
That particular “passion” didn’t last too long before he ditched it. Who knows how long this latest one will last, and how much money wasted till this dill moves on to something else.Comrades, fellow Stakhanovites.
We can achieve 95% in the next Five Year Plan.Posted by Honkie Hammer on 2007 04 08 at 09:49 PM • permalinkBeing a doomsaying Leftist Jeremiah means never having to say you’re sorry.
Heh, I know a leftist named Jeremiah, and I’ve sparred with him over AGW among other things, too. Nice enough guy (though I think I just haven’t found the right button to push to get him frothing yet), but I doubt he’ll have the intellectual honesty to admit that he’s been conned, either, once the CO2 scare-mongering is undeniably exposed for the sham that it is.
Geothermia has raised the carbon cuts to
50%60%80%90%
Repeat: Geothermia has raised the carbon cuts to50%60%80%90%Posted by andycanuck on 2007 04 08 at 10:25 PM • permalinkIn another time and place, Monbiot, Flannery, Garrett, Hoegh-Guldberg and all the others would have been providing the justification for rounding up the Jews, the capitalist roaders and other enemies of the collectivist state and developing plans for even more detention centres, holding camps and gas chambers. If Comrade Rudd wins the next election, then I believe punative measures against people whose carbon footprint exceeds a new government standard will include fines and public shaming. It’s not so far to the next step of demanind they wear an armband to identify them.
The war on terror will be won. The real war against civilisation is the one being fought over technology.
South park on SBS tonight is another GW mockery piece.
People in town start to buy hybrid cars and soon the town is threatened by a cloud of “smug”. Should be worth a watch.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 08 at 11:02 PM • permalink#43, I’m looking forward to tonight’s episode as it will be the only ‘balance’ on SBS all week.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2007 04 08 at 11:12 PM • permalinkI think Garrett will be turfed long before the election. Keeping Garrett opposite Malcolm Turnbull is like betting on a hamster against an alley cat. During an election when environmental issues are likely to be prominent it would be political suicide. Rudd may be creepy, but he’s not stupid - at least not in that particular way.
#48
Health inspector goes to the house of this aborigine.
“Where’s your bin”?, he asks.
“Um, I bin up in Queensland”, replies our dusky brother.
“No. Where’s your wheelie bin”?, exclaims the exasperated inspector.
“Oh, alright. I bin in jail”.
Posted by Jack from Montreal on 2007 04 09 at 01:46 AM • permalink#34 It’s like some bizarre parody of the soviet five year plans
But it is a Historical Inevitibility! Unless we implement Utopia soon, our dystopic world will become a dystopic world with a Thunderdome!
#15 But this current call to stop moving, stop thinking, stop doing, stop producing, stop existing isn’t cute or fun.
Well said, Andrea. But to clarify, most are not saying “stop doing” they are saying “...stop doing or producing (unless I say you can! And don’t forget to ask how and how much you’ll be allowed to produce!)”
They are whining for governments to control everything with the sad assumption that they’ll then be in control. In reality, they’ll be told to forget their absurdly expensive and labor inefficient organic gourmet tofu and instead stand in line for their machine processed Soylent Green.
Posted by Col. Milquetoast on 2007 04 09 at 01:59 AM • permalinkWhat is with this “Rich nations cutting emissions” line? Rich nations still have poor people, who will suffer the most from a carbon tax/credits/looneyscheme being applied to peoples’ cost of living. *unless of course we offset it with some stupid European welfare state style of compensation!
Europe already knows that Socialism has failed and “free” economies prevail. The last hope they have of driving such stupid socialist ideologies down our throats is to have an “end of the world is nigh unless ye repent and tithe to Gaia” Tax. Such forms of economic control will always harm the poor and to offset the effect, welfare would need to be enhanced to “soften” the blow.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I see Europe’s embrace of such “environmental” schemes as an attempt to reassert EU economic control over the world through:
1. Wrangling in the US, Australia and other non-EU first world economies via the greens/democrats/labor/left (useful idiots?).
2. Stifling the emerging economies in China, India and other developing nations.
3. Keep the third world well and truly “under the thumb” by addicting them green friendly “anti-poverty” aid rather than allowing them to make their own progress towards development through industry and resources development.Posted by CanberraNeoCon on 2007 04 09 at 03:09 AM • permalinkIt has become obvious that many who are regarded as leftist intellectuals would prefer most of the rest of us to be dead. Anyone who wishes to understand how apparently civilised and normal-looking people can promote such a barbaric solution to a problem that has yet to be properly characterised will probably find John Ray’s “Leftism as Psychopathy” enlightening.
Hate to break up this tremendous critique of warmingologists, but I have a pointless university assignment due tomorrow which I am struggling for motivation to complete.
Anybody who wants to offer serious or hilarious responses to this question
“Explain how social and cultural contexts matter in schooling”
feel free to post here. I expect references and a lot of laying the smackdown on multi-culti nonsense in schools these days.
Cheers
#46 - What happened to 70?
Don’t concern yourself. It’s probably a logarithmic thing that the rest of us can’t understand. These people are scientists after allPosted by Whale Spinor on 2007 04 09 at 04:00 AM • permalink#57 – THe Prez, being an ex-teacher this is like waving a red rag to a bull. There is a huge correlation between ex-teachers and those who found such assignments at Uni to be complete and utter crap.
“Explain how social and cultural contexts matter in schooling”
(my references to “he” or “him” can also be interpreted as “she” and “her”)
For the really poor kid whose parent is a drug/gambling/(name your vice) addict or welfare dependant parasite, it is your job as a teacher to show him the “right” path to mainstream enlightenment to not become an oxygen thief nor produce more oxygen thieves.
For the kid whose parents are the “working poor” it is your job as a teacher to show him the “right” path to mainstream enlightenment so he may become better trained and enjoy a better life for his future family.
For the middleclass kid who is going off the rails it is your job as a teacher to show him the “right” path to mainstream enlightenment to understand the alternatives are going to send him straight to hell.
For the kid who is showing an appreciation of leftism it is your job as a teacher to show him the “right” path to mainstream enlightenment to make him understand what leftism has done and is still doing to certain parts of the world.
For the kid who is struggling due to cultural/religious/linguistic issues it is your job as a teacher to show him the “right” path to mainstream enlightenment by ensuring that he becomes a useful English speaking member of society who honours and obeys the mainstream laws/customs/morals and ethics of his adopted homeland.
In summary – yes there are different social and cultural contexts out there, but as teachers it is our job to ensure that it is our NATIONAL MAINSTREAM social and cultural context that they MUST aspire to.
Posted by CanberraNeoCon on 2007 04 09 at 04:00 AM • permalink55. CanberraNeoCon, Id add a couple of “sensible” reasons of self interest for the euros as well. They have been hammered for years about their protectionist ag policies, with no “humanitarian” reason for keeping their subsidies.
All of a sudden its acceptable to slap a swingeing “carbon tax” instead of a tariff on anything outside the EU zone.The other is a bit more fuzzy. How long do you think it will be before reduced population size becomes a credit???Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 09 at 04:05 AM • permalink#57 - “Explain how social and cultural contexts matter in schooling”
Most social and cultural contexts are in fact con texts and so matter not a jot.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 04 09 at 04:08 AM • permalinkThe Prez, that sounds as fun and unbiased as one of my assignments.
In its pursuit to grow the Australian economy and prepare Australia for the 21st century, the Howard Government has turned it’s back on the average Australian working family, by creating reforms designed to only assist the business sector. Discuss, with proper reference to all necessary Federal law. Cite examples.
#60 totally agreed!
#62 Please forward this drivel to the Commonwealth Minister for Education, Science and Training’s Office. Ministerial Advisers love getting fodder like this to use in Question Time. Additionally, it gets used when the vice chancellors of our public universities meet with the Minister and DEST executive to ask for more money.Posted by CanberraNeoCon on 2007 04 09 at 04:37 AM • permalink“Explain how social and cultural contexts matter in schooling”</i>
Actually, that’s not an inherently multi-cult nonsense demand. People *are* shaped by their cultures and societies, and one result can be that they are less able to learn effectively. Consider sociocultural backgrounds that consider excelling in “the white man’s schools” to be a betrayal of the race, or that women not need to be educated or should appear dumber than men, or that knowledge of a Holy Book obviates the need for secular learning (whether a madrasa that teach Koran memorization, a Torah-only education in some Ultra-orthadox Jewish circles, or the rejection of teaching of evolution by Christian Fundamentalists).
Just start from the obvious position that not all cultures and societies are equal, and it becomes clear that social and cultural contexts are of great importance to education.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2007 04 09 at 04:42 AM • permalink#63, I should do that.
I knew I was in for a semester of pain and arguments when in the first class, the teacher introduced himself and then proceeded to cite The Age and the unions as reliable sources.
The class mantra is “Howard is bad. Unions are good. Howard is bad. Unions are good.” Sadly, almost everyone but me swallows this drivel.
I was gobsmacked one class when the teacher somehow magically tied in Howard, WorkChoices, Global Warming, the Kyoto Protocol and George W Bush, and that China isn’t responsible for it’s emissions. When I queried all those coal stations being built, I was told that they were irrelevant because China’s a developing country and Australia is singlehandedly responsible for global warming. I nearly vomited.
rebase, Yup we have a winner for the best non-PC story of the year, I dips me lid….
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2007 04 09 at 05:49 AM • permalinkIn all my life I’ve never been woken on Sunday by Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons knocking at my door, nor been chanted at by Hare Krishnas. But on Easter Sunday I got a bloke knocking on my door holding a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth”. He launched into a greenie jeremiad trying to sign me up to his silly religion. Annoyed, I turned my back on him before he’d finished his 1st sentence with an abrupt “Not interested”. But for the first time in my life I wish I been given a Watchtower or Baghavad Gita to annoy him with in return.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2007 04 09 at 07:17 AM • permalinkOT. Media Watch is so behind the times. Tonight they are covering Earth Hour and the photos of Sinny Harber.
Didn’t Tim go over that way back in the day?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 04 09 at 07:22 AM • permalink“Explain how social and cultural contexts matter in schooling”
At the graduate and post-gratduate level there is no need to think - the object is to repeat back what your lecturer has told you. Original thinking is not required, or indeed advisable. Your lecturer has a lot of assignments to mark and more interesting things to do so he is interested only in checking that you have absorbed his wisdom and used referencing correctly, and the recommended (or greater) number of references, with minimum internet references. Assessing original ideas, now matter how good, takes too much time and thought and slows down the marking process. Might be different at the doctoral level.
Copy-and-paste from the internet is acceptable provided you have the ability to re-write so as to fool a plagiarism engine. Not hard and undetectable if you have a reasonable facility with English.
Just watched The Great Global Warming Swindle on Google. Powerful stuff. Really powerful. If you haven’t seen it put 75 minutes aside and be astounded.
Posted by walterplinge on 2007 04 09 at 07:24 AM • permalink#29 lococoti. you have it. The enviro-mentalists’ year zero.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 09 at 08:17 AM • permalink#68
Warning black humour.
Deaf black lesbian accused of chainsaw murder.
What would her defense be? That, being death, she didn’t know the chain-saw was running?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 09 at 08:19 AM • permalink#57, 62 - Try constructing your essay using this page. One size fits all.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 04 09 at 08:48 AM • permalinkPerhaps you could even make reference to this
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 04 09 at 08:56 AM • permalink#85, 87,
I’d love to, because there’s no way I can think of that I can seriously write an answer to that essay without it being complete Lefty crap (the old write for your audience thing). I mean, the teacher thinks that the unions are non-biased. What the?!
This is the same teacher, who when hearing of the plane crash which killed some DFAT staff cheered, because he thought Downer was on the flight. I got kicked out of class that day for calling him, and I quote, “a stupid fucking Moonbat”. I got hauled into the co-ordinator’s office for that one.
I’m struggling to figure out how I’m going to write this essay without writing drivel.
“This is the same teacher, who when hearing of the plane crash which killed some DFAT staff cheered, because he thought Downer was on the flight.”
It sounds to me that if your teacher is saying things like that openly in class you need to be taperecording things. Surely, there would be someone interested in such statements, even if it’s not his immediate boss. How is it even remotely acceptable for a teacher to cheer the deaths of fellow citizens, and actually hope for the deaths of government officials? Aren’t teachers, due to their position of trust and responsibility, beholden to some sort of “morals clause” similar to what they used to have in Hollywood? Or can they literally go around advocating and celebrating the death of public officials without paying any consequences?
Kcom, I really wish I had of had a tape recorder with me that day, because I would have recorded it… right after warning the airline not the let the flight go. I thought it was absolutely disgraceful that he thought it was great that Alexander Downer may have been dead. Unfortunately, so did the rest of the class.
The week after I called the teacher a Moonbat, I was called by the course co-ordinator to set up a meeting, and so I went in, and we discussed what happened. The co-ordinator must have thought that there may be something in my allegations, because the teacher was “sick” for the next three weeks. I should chase that up.
To be honest, if I had a tape recording of class that day, I would have copied the tape and sent one tape to Alexander Downer’s office, one to John Howard’s office, one to the Herald Sun, and one to Tim.
Ash_ - From the link at #87: “If, moreover, all (post-modernist literary theory) is rhetoric and ``language games,’’ then internal logical consistency is superfluous too: a patina of theoretical sophistication serves equally well. Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors and puns substitute for evidence and logic.”
So just make it illogical and uncomprehensible but bound in a web of theoretical sophistication and you’ll bolt in with flying colours.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2007 04 09 at 10:19 AM • permalink#64, that was an interesting case of turning PC on its head. It does drive them nuts.
Years ago when Giuliani was mayor here in NYC, a college girl whom I knew asked for help answering a question, “How is crime the fault of society?” and I told her to answer that American society is responsible for crime insofar as it fails to enforce criminal laws in the cities, leading to multi-generational cycles of crime and to more subcultures of criminality than would otherwise exist. She wrote those things, more or less. The professor gave her paper a low grade and scrawled angrily on her paper that it had been “proven” that socio-economic conditions cause crime. Now, get this: It was an English assignment; the professor, a professor of English. And this: this was in the midst of the Giuliani’s dizzying success in reducing crime through new strategies of law enforcement. (Her sociology professor tended to be rather nicer and dogmatic.)
Ash, does your mobile phone take video? Perhaps something to consider when your Professor Moonbat is in full flight.
Just make sure you back up your files.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 04 09 at 08:24 PM • permalinkThanks for the help everyone. Got it done overnight without impugning my integrity too much.
I wonder if the lecturer will pick up on my subtle accusations that his course does not take into account the fact that not all his students are loony, moonbat warriors looking to bring down oppressive social constructs.
I wrote it as if me, as a proud, white, heterosexual male, was a minority that wasn’t having my feelings taken into account with all his wishy-washy readings.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
We won’t rest until Gaia OWES us carbon…
delivered, with any luck, by lightning bolts…