[Green-Activist] {Disarmed}Re:[ClimateChangeAction]GreenhouseMafia strikes Fordeelectorate . . .

[Anne Goddard]

Hello again Frank,

You wrote that your opinion of me is thus : "Johnny cum lately Christian 
pacifist anti nuke campaigner, who likes her grog"

I think you have me pegged in the wrong hole.

"Johnny cum lately"...
I ran in the last two Federal elections and have been actively campaigning 
for a better future for my 18 year old daughter and my 14 year old son ever 
since they were born.
I am obviously not as old as you are, and i didn't get "fired up" until my 
love for them caused me act towards attempting to provide a better future 
for them than our elected reps were prepared to provide for them (with my 
taxes).

"Christian"
where did you get that from?
I am not a member of any "man made" religion. I do understand that there are 
many organised religions on this planet that we all share. I have no right 
to dictate what is the "right" religion, or God, or what people can or can 
not believe in. That is their own personal choice, not mine (or anyone 
elses).

I do not like alcohol. It causes many people to act irresponsibly and it is 
a very dangerous drug (especially in my small body).

As far as being a "pacifist"... if my family is violently treatened i will 
doggedly stand my ground and fight (to death if necessary).

You have one thing right... I am an anti Nuke campaigner. Nuclear Power is 
not the solution to climate change. Nuclear mining is dirty. The nuclear 
industry is corrupt. There are solutions available (geothermal, wind, tidal, 
wave, solar). It is up to our elected leaders to ensure that these solutions 
are put into place asap - using our taxes for the benefit of our people.

For the record, I won't be replying to any more of your posts as i now 
regard you as a "troll".
See TROLL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
snip...
"often contribute no useful information to the thread, but instead make 
argumentative posts in an attempt to discredit another person, concentrating 
almost exclusively on facts irrelevant to the point of the conversation, 
with the intent of provoking a reaction from others"

To continue a flaming conversation just feeds the trolls fire, leads the 
original thread further off the topic and leads to nothing positive.

Peace to you and yours

Anne Goddard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: frank
To: maillist for Green Activists
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Green-Activist] 
{Disarmed}Re:[ClimateChangeAction]GreenhouseMafia strikes Fordeelectorate . 
. .


Dear Anne,

After 40 or more years of environmental activism, where only the people who 
started pro active organizations such as Greenpeace can claim to have had a 
greater influence than myself, i'm used to people who use the environment to 
further other causes.

Take Kim, the thrust of her mail is that the Liberal Party is no good for 
the environment.  Gee, i never knew that!  I always thought they were 
concerned, honest people.  NOT.
The inference of her post is that the Labor Party is good for the 
environment.  Any greenie knows that's not the case.  Like the Libs, Labors 
track record is abysmal.

The Chinaman who wrote "The Art Of War" about a thousand years ago, who 
intellectuals and war mongers gush about, said, "people who don't learn from 
history are condemned to repeating the same mistakes."  Or words to that 
effect.

Even though the last 50 or 60 years can't really be classed as history, The 
Howard era is simply a rerun of the Menses era.  When Labor has had power, 
they've been every bit as environmentally damaging as the Liberals ever 
were.  The state Labor governments have acted even worse.  Even though 
they've often played the green card to get elected.

But i'll try to give u a condensed history lesson of how human activity has 
caused, or increased the effects of climate change and/or environmental 
degradation over the last million or so years.  This isn't the first time 
humans have wrecked local environments and caused local climate to change. 
This is the first time we've done it on a global scale, however.

In the middle east and north Africa, civilizations have risen and fallen 
like nine pins.  The reason for their fall has always been that populations 
have outstripped the recourses where the civilization occurred, resulting in 
the need to make war on their neighbors to steal their recourses.  Sound 
familiar?  The same process has taken place in Europe, Asia, North and South 
America and the Pacific.  There's always been somewhere else for the 
remnants of these civilizations to move to and start the process all over 
again.  Except Christmas Island.  Obviously, no one has learned the lessons 
of history.

Although, that's not quite fair.  There is evidence that the Aztecs had 
learned from the past and had adapted into their religion practices which 
culled the weak, deformed and losers from their society.  European Pagan 
beliefs did much the same, but not in the same way.

Had Christianity not reared it's ugly head, the planet might have been far 
better off.  But that's academic.  Also i don't think it's actually fair to 
totally blame Christianity.  The Romans have to share the blame.  A mixture 
of Christian and Roman dogma is the real culprit.

So Anne, i don't think a Johnny cum lately Christian pacifist anti nuke 
campaigner, who likes her grog has any right to ask what i'm actually doing, 
or have done.  By the way, i don't hold liking grog against u, but i'll bet 
a lot of your wowser Christian mates look down their long pointy noses at u. 
That's because they are Fascist, and believe they have a God given right to 
force their values, via legleslation, on the rest of us.  The Moslems have 
taken a leaf out of their book, and look where that's got us!  They have, at 
least, learned something from history!  Nothing good, but something.

I doubt that u read what i wrote either.  Or if u did, u didn't take the 
point.

frank brown

---------------------------------------------------
back on the original topic...
Hat's off to Kim, exposing our current leaders "spin".
Press release from Mrs. Kim Bax (Cedar Vale, Beaudesert Shire), about
Wendy Creighton's response to Climate Change (Liberal Party candidate
for Forde). . . Saturday 8th Sept 2007 (to cc list below)

Also posted here (with embedded links):-

http://www.kimspages.org/pressreleasesat8sept2007.htm

Greenhouse Mafia Strikes again . . .

Local Cedar Vale Mum Kim Bax is not happy with Wendy Creighton's
response to Climate Change. Wendy is the local Liberal Party
candidate for Forde. "It's the same old tired rhetoric and party
line," said Kim, "mostly re-cycled rot and avoidance from The
Greenhouse Mafia, who were admirably exposed by ABC 4 Corners in
February 2006. These sharks operate from Washington to Canberra, and
all points in between." I don't think our Liberal candidate's truly
thought about this stuff, other than alerting the party hierarchy to
my approach, and relaying their spin.

Kim says Wendy . . . .

Claimed Howard's meeting the Kyoto targets, when leading Australian
Climate scientists say we're not.

Failed to mention the global storm our hugely generous Kyoto targets
caused, which were the most favourable given to any developed nation.

Called CO2 emission targets set by the former chief economist of the
World Bank, and by Australia's own Government scientists, "Arbitrary."

Claimed to be setting CO2 targets, when the bureaucrats concerned
said (in just June this year), "We haven't been asked yet to model
the impacts of a particular policy change."

Said mining hampers CO2 reduction here, when it's only 5% of GDP, and
some Liberals are worried inflexible "Quarry vision" harms other
industries.

Admitted we have "Higher" per capita CO2 emissions (in fact, they're
the highest the World).

Said our huge per capita emissions were caused by long travel
distances, when the UK emits a higher percentage of its CO2 from
transport (most Aussies don't routinely commute long distances
between cities).

Hid behind our "1.3%" contribution to global CO2 (in fact it's 1.5%),
when it's roughly the same as all other small developed countries,
most of them with much bigger populations than ours.

Spruiked overseas re-forestation programmes, when leading Australian
climate scientists emphasise "Other solutions have to be attacked
here at home, and not just expect that we can answer all the problems
by doing these things overseas."

Thinks we should re-forest the World, instead of reducing CO2 at
home, and seriously suggested Howard's $200 million toward this (less
than his election ad budget), would make a dent in "Halving" Global
de-forestation.

Failed to say there aren't enough forests, or potential forests, in
the World to absorb the giant amounts of carbon spewed by industry.

Warned CO2 targets set by the former Chief economist of the World
Bank, and by Australia's own climate scientists, would mean
the "Removal of all cars on our roads." In fact, the UK is aiming
for these targets, and even MORE of their CO2 is caused by cars. I
guess the Brits aren't into hysterical and overblown claims.

Accused environmentalists of being narrow minded and "Political," when
alarm bells are ringing from every quarter of the political and
business spectrum.

Brushed aside "Climate Tipping Points," with no acknowledgment of the
truly massive risks involved.

Admitted John Howard's spruiked $2.8 billion budget to fight Climate
Change is to be spent over 25 years.

Didn't contest the $8.9 billion a year figure spent on supporting
fossil fuels (from the University of Sydney), and while some of these
programmes aren't a "Bad" thing, failed to admit that "About 58% of
the total fossil fuel subsidies identified are perverse subsidies.
These subsidies increase Green House Gas emissions while at the same
time reducing economic efficiency." And that's still an awful lot
more than $2.8 billion over 25 years to fight Climate Change.

Didn't dispute that the CO2 saved by our entire solar programme
(476,000 tonnes), is only 0.28% of the 170 million tonnes spewed by
coal here. Said she didn't understand my criticism of this.

Disputed China's renewable energy targets, when a September 2007 CNBC
article said "China plans to invest 2 trillion yuan ($265 billion) in
renewable energy by 2020."

Failed to see China's planned 60 gigawatts of renewable power by 2030
is more energy than we use from all sources. Missed the point I was
making, e.g. it's possible to run a modern economy on renewables
(even though it's obvious China's not running its entire economy on
renewables).

Hi-lited China's use of coal, without mentioning Aussies still emit 5
tonnes of carbon per person, per year - compared to just 1 for the
Chinese.

Failed to acknowledge that China has far high renewable energy targets
than Australia.

Accused China of not "Actively working to reduce emissions," when
they now run enough green power to energise over half of our nation.

Made spurious claims about developing nations shunning Kyoto targets,
without mentioning the "Common but differentiated responsibilities"
officially enshrined in Kyoto, based on relative wealth, and relative
input to current CO2 concentrations. One of Australia's leading
climate scientists puts it best "The 50 least developed countries
have together contributed less than 0.5 per cent of global cumulative
emissions over 200 years."

And HERE'S Wendy's responses in full (with a detailed critique from
Kim)

And HERE'S Kim's questions to Wendy in full.

And HERE'S Kim's local Climate Change film site

From:- Mrs. Kim Bax, Cedar Vale, Beaudesert Shire ph 5543 1796 or 041
270 8451

cc - Federal politicians (Qld)
cc - State politicians (Qld)
cc - Wendy Creighton (Liberal, Forde)
cc - Brett Raguse (ALP, Forde)
cc - Hajnal Ban (National, Forde)
cc - Andy Grodecki (Green, Forde)
cc - Local press (Forde electorate)
cc - Various environmental contacts and organisations






-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner 
at http://lists.altnews.com.au/MailScanner.html ,
and is believed to be clean.