Duff
Worst Website Ever....
- Joined
- 8/6/04
- Messages
- 2,042
- Reaction score
- 6
:lol: , ahh Wort, you've dragged me out of a self imposed ban.
OK, let's create a system whereby essential services are dictated by Government. What would be your number 1? Health? Medicare Gold supported by Gillard? Oh sorry, they just abanded that for something different didn't they.
Explain then the simultaneous warming on MARS. Maybe there's a Liberal PM up there as well. And while you're at it, provide a peer reviewed link from any of the 99% of the 'worlds most respected scientific organisations' which proves this is the case. I'm writing a journal article ATM on plant DNA, does that mean I can just SPECULATE on my results? I didn't realise it was so easy, thanks B)
Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm also not mistaken, but didn't Bob Hawke suggest not that long ago that Australia was perfectly suited for waste disposal? Nuclear that is. There must then have been a change in thinking over the past several years, or, nope, just preference dealing like in NSW recently with the ALP and the Greens. Imagine the uproar if the NSW ALP decided to place wind turbines along the coastline (where the best winds are) to provide your 'investment' in alternate sources of energy. Did you know that they claimed that the de-sal plant would be 100% green powered? False, yet more drain on the coal fired power grid.
Australia is still 10 - 15 years away from the FIRST nuclear power plant. I hope it's built. Maybe then people will realise that they are not 'bombs' in their backyards.
It's the government's job to provide essential services and funding into the future. Not to sell off yesterday's successes to fund its own term in office, and leave future generations to rely on corporations to provide essential services.
OK, let's create a system whereby essential services are dictated by Government. What would be your number 1? Health? Medicare Gold supported by Gillard? Oh sorry, they just abanded that for something different didn't they.
The entire weight of 99% of the world's most respected scientific organisations aren't enough to convince you? You know better? The fact that the Northern hemisphere is experiencing weather patterns never seen before doesn't raise any eyebrows with you? That 'record rainfall' doesn't strike you as odd? The fact that we pump billions of tons of carbon deposits out of the ground where it's been for millions of years and burn them, while cutting down millions of acres of trees, that adds up as fine and dandy to you? Couldn't possibly be affecting the planet negatively could it?
Explain then the simultaneous warming on MARS. Maybe there's a Liberal PM up there as well. And while you're at it, provide a peer reviewed link from any of the 99% of the 'worlds most respected scientific organisations' which proves this is the case. I'm writing a journal article ATM on plant DNA, does that mean I can just SPECULATE on my results? I didn't realise it was so easy, thanks B)
How can a technology which produces waste that REMAINS TOXIC FOR LONGER THAN MANKIND HAS WALKED THE EARTH possibly be the solution?! Talk about shitting on the future to solve today's problems. That is perfect Howard. For the cost of implementing an effective nuclear power system in Australia you could equip every single home with its own solar panels. That's without making any investment in wind, wave, tide, or geothermal. The real truth is that there is no big money to be made from every home reducing its own consumption and meeting most of its demand with local renewable production. Decentralised power generation means decentralised profits, and that means none of Howard's buddies get to invest in it and reap the profits.
No, lets instead invest BILLIONS into a highly dangerous and toxic technology (should I point out here that there has NEVER been a successfully decomissioned nuclear power plant - EVER), lets produce waste that can kill people for thousands of years to come (way longer than any civilisation in history has managed to convey a message), or into some ******** 'geosequestration' rumour that, even at its best (if it worked at all) is still likely to be dirtier than burning natural gas is today. Furthermore, what do you think would happen to the funding of renewables once we start building nuclear? If nuclear was clearly an interim measure, with a distinct deadline and an effective method of waste and plant disposal, then I might consider it. As it stands, nuclear is the worst possible decision Australia could make.
Now we're getting somewhere. If I'm also not mistaken, but didn't Bob Hawke suggest not that long ago that Australia was perfectly suited for waste disposal? Nuclear that is. There must then have been a change in thinking over the past several years, or, nope, just preference dealing like in NSW recently with the ALP and the Greens. Imagine the uproar if the NSW ALP decided to place wind turbines along the coastline (where the best winds are) to provide your 'investment' in alternate sources of energy. Did you know that they claimed that the de-sal plant would be 100% green powered? False, yet more drain on the coal fired power grid.
Australia is still 10 - 15 years away from the FIRST nuclear power plant. I hope it's built. Maybe then people will realise that they are not 'bombs' in their backyards.