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

[frank]

Oh i almost forgot.

Dear Anne,

U asked what i've been "actually doing".  Well, i just made Beattie resign 
and Anna Bligh will get the top job unopposed.  First woman premier in Qld. 
She'll get there because it would be spun a bully boy tactics, if anyone 
blockaded Qld's highways.  Wouldn't get the same popular support if Beattie 
was premier.

That's all.

frank brown

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne Goddard" <anne at globalclimatechangeaction.org>
To: "maillist for Green Activists" <green-activist at lists.altnews.com.au>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: 
[Green-Activist]{Disarmed}Re:[ClimateChangeAction]GreenhouseMafia 
strikesFordeelectorate . . .


> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Green-Activist mailing list
> Green-Activist at lists.altnews.com.au
> http://lists.altnews.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/green-activist
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: 9/9/2007 
> 10:17 AM
>
> 


-- 
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.