The scientist who pioneered global warming research, Roger Revelle,, rejected the validity of his own research years before his death in 1991, and denounced the political agenda based on it. Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" was based on Revelle's work, and it was Revelle who first directly influenced Gore about the idea. Al Gore refused Revelle's invitations to debate with him in public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbz9ZB8RPME

Because it's about a political agenda, not science.

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

Your phrase "Orwellian paranoia" implies that Orwell himself was paranoid. Actually he was very insightful and intelligent and experienced first-hand the things he wrote about. His novels were not intended as parodies. They have for decades been set texts for high school English. Are our schools paranoid? Often people on the left also resort to "Orwellian paranoia". (Thank God they have the environment instead now.) Orwell was himself a socialist, not a right-wing alarmist. It is not paranoia to be concerned about increasing government control, since increasiing government control is what naturally leads to total (totalitarian) government control. That is the theme of Orwell's books. It is not paranoid to guard against excessive government, it is our responsibiity. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. If losing our freedoms were not a real danger, there would be nothing to be vigilant against.

I was not comparing the emissions from a jet airliner in one trip to the emissions from all the cars in Brisbane in one year. I didn't think about the fuel jets use on take-off - thanks for pointing that out. But don't road vehicles also use more fuel when moving off?

The "off-the-planet" boat power requirements I used were those of the person I was replying to here. Sorry for not instead looking up and stating the actual requirements for all the different hull types. Recharging batteries with the power required for a boat (or car) would require far more than the power for household uses during the day, so I don't think doing it overnight during off-peak times will avoid adding to power station fuel requirements. Or is it also okay for me to leave my lights, TV and stove on overnight?

From overhead, Brisbane does not look as green as a forest (thankfully), but it is as green as a city can reasonably be expected to be. The whole reason environmentalists complain about cities is that they impose on natural ecologies, so they are obviosly not ecologies themselves. I know that you want to make them ecologies, but then ecology would be in the way of the cities.

I agree that I don't have a good understanding of "environmental issues". Environmentalism isn't supposed to be understood - it isn't based on logic. It is just a propaganda instrument, a set of fraudulent pretexts for the government to tell people what to do. That is ultimately the environmentalists' solution to every alleged problem: Pass law upon law. Don't we therefore have the right to ask whether passing laws is itself not the real aim? As Lenin said, always look to see who benefits.

Environmentalists apparently did not understand environmental issues when in the late 1980s they were telling us we have "ten years to save the planet". Twenty years later, many are still saying "just in case" instead of "definitely" about global warming and talking about it being "fifty years away". We were wrong to believe them then, when there was also a "scientific consensus", so should we now? All they have are some weather and climate patterns which are not unprecedented, just outside of living memory of most people, and they are even lying about those.

You started off accusing me of representing big business (Boral) but finished off criticising me for representing the interests of the common man. You say it is not Boral who will "concrete Brisbane", but the common individual. Of course Boral will benefit, but only because "concreting Brisbane" is in the individual interests of everyone else. But most individuals are not interested in concreting Brisbane. That is just cartoon environmentalist alarmism. Most people are content with a house and maybe a small business. But you don't want to leave them even to do that in peace. You are not worried about Brisbane being concreted at all - you oppose people living a normal lifestyle without government restraint. That is the logic of your own statements.

You have shown that you have not even a basic understanding of economics. You also don't understand the basic concepts of individual freedom. But you apparently do know that indivdiual freedom is what you are against. Thank you for admitting that here. The left's real enemy is not corporations, but individual freedom. Corporations are enthusiastic about "sustainable develpment" and are fully cooperating with promotion and implementation of SD policies.

Since you mention farming in the city as being a threat to the ecology, what about "community gardens", which are a feature of "sustainable development"? One of the "gardens" I visitted is on an enormous property. The farm did not yet occupy all of it, but it would need to in order to provide food for the whole local community and it is intended that it will. But that's okay, isn't it, because in this case it is not being done by individuals on their own property.

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

It says "Brisbane City Council Discussion Forums" at the top of the screen, which indicates that they are for more than just givng feedback to BCC. My posts are in regard to concerns about greening issues - I'm oncerned about conflicts greening policies have with individual rights. I'd call that a conflict with "livability" and "community", which are allegedly other BCC concerns. I'm criticising the greening policies. What you call "undermining or devaluing other concerns" is  disagreement. If you don't tolerate disagreement, then I question the validity of your policies and the manner in which they were arrived at. The only option you leave is for all of us, including yourself, to accept them without question. What sort of community consultation is it where the community must agree with a prepared plan? Did that plan itself originate with the community? Where did "Greening Australia" come from?

I note also that you avoid directly addressing the points I raised in my posts.

I don't wish Brisbane to be all concrete, but the only alternative is not for it to be all forest. I assume you live in a house or unit and, if you are not retired or unemployed, work in a building. You may have children who are schoolled in a building. If it's okay for you, why is it not okay for others? What proportion of the property you reside on is treed? Do you have a "track" to the buildings on it? How about a view? We have some good views in many places around Brisbane, don't we? Erosion is not a problem in built-up areas - we have drains for water run-off.

There is little or no rainforest in the Brisbane area to flatten. What areas remain are not big enough to be whole forests and I doubt that any of it would be real rainforest at all now. http://www.brisrain.webcentral.com.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=273

Government control is individual control - i.e. control of individuals by other individuals in government. Those individuals have vested interests too. The difference is that they have wider influence than other individuals, giving them more scope for abuse than other individuals have. I have influence over my own home and my own actions. Campbell Newman has influence over everyone's homes and actions. Now please consider the implications of (almost) complete government control, which is where environmental protection is taking us. There is no activity which does not impact the environment, and therefore no limit to the number of such laws which could be made.

Individual actions should not be so free that they impose on others. If a man's pesticide run-off flows into someone else's property, he must take responsibility or be prosecuted; because that other property is under the control of another individual, not himself.

Individuals are not going to clear, subdivide, build, farm or turn into dumps the whole of Brisbane just like that. For such ventures to be profitable, there have to be buyers or customers. Buyers are not in such unlimitted supply that every "common man" can make an instant or even fast killing with his land. But we do need some of that enterprise in order for us all to live. Your present lifestyle depends on what enterprises there already are. I notice you did not mention the new Gallery of Modern Art (massive - and useless), the King George Square Bus Centre, the new bus tunnels, busways, and the rest of the massive government bureaucratic and public infrastructure of various kinds required to administer all of the government services and controls you want us to have. Next time you are out, count all of the government/public buildings you pass by. It's not just "common" individuals who build.

We either have complete individual control - freedom of individuals to do as they wish - or partial individual controls and freedoms and partial governement (made up of indivduals) control and freedoms to do as it/they wish with other people's property and person. Why wouldn't the government manipulate the laws to suit it's own goals? Don't they do that now? It is easier for them than it is for the comon man, since the government directly administers the laws. Who is the common man a custodian for - the government? Or is the government a custodian too? If so, who is the government answerable to besides itself? Please don't say "the common man".

Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were completely free, enterprising individuals - and they ran their governments. That is what made them so free - freer than any individual could be without any government at all.

Your argument concerning individual freedoms of the common man raises an interesting question. The way you tell it, when "action groiups" and "community groups" spring up to "defend community interests", they are really defending the community from itself. You are implying that you do not trust the community - not even the majority - to be able behave in it's own interests. Since, as you say, the common man's interests are personal gain, such community groups must be opposing the interests of the community. If laws are required to preserve "wilderness", the community must simply not be interested in living in wilderness You may say that the community is just not aware of it's real interests, or that it has wrong interests which conflict with it's real interests. But then what are those real interests?

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

MrCurly (30/03/2009)

---

So many 'pearls' indeed, your skewed logic is quite hilarious . I'm guessing you have shares in Boral, and most likely live in a unit.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Abraham Lincoln

Your own logic here is that because my opinion differs from yours, I must have some vested interest. The only interest I am defending is the right of the common man to decide what to do with his own property. I don't know why you think my logic is skewed. Preserving the environment to the degree you wish to would require a vast and detailed array of laws and an intrusive degree of monitoring which would add up to the totalitarian, bureaucratic strangulation I described. For long now residents and businesses have been fighting oppressive bureaucratic nit-picking regarding their use of their properties.

Since you bring up units, elsewhere in these forums an advocate of "sustainable development" points out that part of the SD plan is high-density living, which means moving everyone from the suburbs and into multilevel apartment buildings in the city. They want high-density living in order to reduce the amount of "green space" we displace and also to make public and active transport more viable. I expect all of the character and heritage houses and other buildings they now say wie must protect will have to be demolished to make way for this plan, though.

Since you bring up corporate interests, another feature of "sustainable development" is Public-Private Partnerships. What are they? Do they mean that the government enlist the services of Joe's Auto Shop at Moorooka? Could he handle such a big contract? Sorry, government contracts are of a size which your small, local  business can't handle. They will go to big corporations, probably foreign ones, the way things are going. That should tip the playing field toward the big end of town a tad. I recommend you get yourself some shares in Boral.

Your friend Abe was himself friendly with the big industrialists of his time. He made it possible for them to build a lot of railroads. It is no exaggeration to say that he gave today's corporate U.S. giants their big starts.

How's them qumqats, Abdul?

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.

Oh I love this. There certainly are some "pearls" here. Especially the one about "concerned citizens" being "envoropolice" - spying and reporting on each other. MrC - that's a little too much "community" for me. But it actually is what those regulations are intended to turn us into. Recall those federal government anti-terrorism campaigns? Your neighbour was now a potential national enemy, like those Arabs who highjacked the planes. Now also your neighbour is a potential large-scale deforester, like the multinational logging companies and agribusinesses.

I woulld like to hear the logic behind he reguluations too. Apparently, if you own a big property, you may not clear parts of it for tracks or buildings. In other words - you can't use most of it. You bought it for nothing. You bought a big forest to walk around in (if even that is possible to do). A second building on your property - really! You also want to stop people from even fencing their properties, allowing everyone else to walk through them. Why not just clear tracks for public thoroughfare as well? The public will eventually clear their own. The way is also left open for criminal activity if properties are left mostly unused and uninhabited.

I'm not surprised there are insufficient council staff to police breaches, considering that there are so many laws, and such unreasonable ones, to breach. Would you like to pay for the size of council workforce required to do all that? But I forget - the citizens could help by policing each other. "Hello - crime stoppers? I'd like to report a fence." Then ther is the amount and detail of monitoring of individuals by Council to watch for breaches. Do you know what "police state" means? Do you want us all to live on the "Big Brother" TV show permanently? Consier also the amount of paper requried for all the paperwork required for this massive bureaucracy. Perhaps we could set aside a forestry plantation to supply it all.

Consider now that those laws are on paper and can be enforced any time the government wishes to. They may not be consistently enforced now somply because it would be too unpopular. But they are there. Now ask yourlself what our enterprising council officials will actually use them for; yes - the same officials you complain are now "neglecting" the environment.

At least you have a sensible policy on clearing around houses to prevent trees falling on them. You are at least putting safety before the envoronment in this case, if not our economic well-being.

Consider this: All the "protected" public parklands routinely have rubbish dumped in them by campers, as testified by the multiple boot-loads of garbage "clean-up" volunteers cart out of them. Would those people dump rubbish on their own properties? No. But the parkland is not their property - it is "public", meaning owned by the government, not by them. So they don't bother. There are people to do these things! The government looks after all that - they own it. But what if that parkland were returned to the people? It would be occupied, yes - some trees would be cleared, but it would be looked after. It would not be a dump. And - it would be used for something productive.

Next time you go out, look at how many trees are visible from your street - on the footpath, in your neighbours' properties, on the surrounding hills of your and neighbouring suburbs. Why don't you take a look at Google Earth and see how many trees are visible in residential areas from above. http://www.ourbrisbane.com/maps

Message content.

"Government is not eloquence, is not reason. It is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

- George Washington, first president of the United States.