🚀 go-pugleaf

<hairyarms@aussiemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:1184056303.252246.169440@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 9, 2:25 pm, "George W. Frost" <fro...@iceworks.org> wrote:
>> Nice to see the councils giving a rebate if you install rainwater tanks 
>> to
>> connect to the toilet etc, but you wait and see what the councils have
>> planned for the future.
>> They will legislate and announce a    "Bulk Water Storage Tank Fee"
>>
>
> Maybe, there is no limit to what the bureaucratic mind can find to
> charge a fee for.


True statement

>
>> It is really odd that Connex get fined thousands of dollars  for not
>> supplying trains to schedule and missed trains etc.
>> Yet, all the water Boards seem to be exempt from any fees for not 
>> supplying
>> water as needed.
>
> I find nothing odd about this at all, the two have little in common.
> Should the Water Board be held responsible for it not raining?

I am not sayuing that they are to blame, if you read my comment about 
Connex, then that relates to the water board as well, Connex have a system 
in place but do not supply thte amount of scheduled trains they promise, if 
they don't, they get a hefty fine from the Government,
The water board have a system in place, admittedly there is no water for 
them to supply, but they are still charging cunsumers the full amount as 
when there is plenty of water, they are still upgrading their new cars, 
upgrading their buildings as if there is no tomorrow and treating the 
consumers with contempt.
Do you think that the Government would let Connex charge train travellers 
for travel on trains which are not there?


>> We are almost on level 4 restrictions all across the state, which means 
>> you
>> cant use water as you like, yet we still have to pay top price for the
>> supply of goods which we  are not allowed to have.
>
> But you still only pay for what you get.

When there is the water to have, then you get charged a water usage fee for 
what you have used,
but another poster has claimed they were on level 5 going to level 6,
How much water can you use on stage 6?
Bet he will still be charged the full amount for supply of water he wont be 
able to use

>
>> Something doesn't sound quite right, it doesn't balance.
>>
>
> So you are blaming the Council or the Water Board for El Nino?


Who mentioned anything about El Nino?


>> You cannot blame "climate change"
>
> Eastern Australia has been having El Nino events for a very long time,
> we seem to be just starting to come out of a particularly nasty one.
> This is the major factor in the drought overall and your water
> restrictions in particular, not climate change.  However consider that
> climate scientists think that if present trends continue the frequency
> and severity of El Nino is likely to get worse.  This _would_ be a
> consequence of climate change.


El Nino's effects are usually only around for abour 7 - 8 months


>>
>> this is a made up phrase to suit the purpose of greenies and politicians
>
> Why would they make it up?  How come the great majority of
> climatologists world wide say it is happening? Are they part of the
> same vast global conspiracy?  Who is bribing them and why?


Who said anything about bribery?

>> No such thing as "climate change" it has been going on for thousands of
>> years
>>
>
> The climate has been changing for millions of years without help from
> mankind.

You have just answered my argument

>But now WE are having an effect as well as all the natural
> forces.

Not really, nature is doing it well by itself.


>> Was mankind to blame for the Ice Age"
>> Was mankind to blame for the thawing of the Ice Age?
>> Was mankind to blame for the eventual drying up of the inland lakes and 
>> seas
>> leaving deserts?
>>
>> No way, because man wasn't invented then
>>
>
> No because this is a straw man argument.  No climatolost says mankind
> was responsible for all those things back millions of years.  That
> these things happened in the past is quite within the climate models,
> what we need to consider is why some things are changing now.  Have a
> look at the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting now ask
> yourself what is the cause.


read the next sentence again.

>> It is the same in these years now, mankind cannot be held to blame.
>


> It is measurably and demonstrably not the same.  The growth of the
> amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 100 years has no
> explanation other than from human activity.
>
>>
>> Any change in the climate is due to the atomic reaction of the earth and 
>> its
>> environs
>>
>
> I haven't heard this explanation before.  Please tell me where you got
> it from and how this has increased the CO2 in the air in the last 100
> years.


You know nothing about atomic reaction?
if not, then your argument is baseless.
You know something about physical reaction.
You know something about mental reaction.
then you should know something about atomic reaction, seeing that everything 
on this planet is created from atoms
a mixture of particular atoms create a reaction, even to the atoms in your 
body.

>> We cannot control the earth's interiors, lava flows, winds, earthquakes,
>> tides, seasons  etc
>
> No we cannot control those things but we can control how much carbon
> dioxide etc we put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel.


This is also my argument and I agree with you on this,but on a different 
agenda

>> so you are not going to be able to control any type of climate change 
>> that
>> may or may not come along
>>
>
> It does not follow.
>

Every day, the volcano in Hawaii spews more than 2,500 tons of sulfur 
dioxide into the atmosphere, enough noxious gas to fill 100 Goodyear blimps.
a natural occurance from one volcano which no-one would be able to contain 
or control.

cheers

frosty


> David
>
>