ASK a forest worker from Tasmania, a commercial fisherman from South Australia, a sugarcane grower from Queensland or a cattle producer from New South Wales what they think of Greens and a common complaint will be that “Greens tell lies”.
Each of these groups have been the target of clever campaigns by Green groups including The Wilderness Society and WWF Australia.
Tasmanian forest workers have put up committed and organised resistance and many of their truck and utilities sport bumper stickers with the comment “Greens tell lies”.
While these forest workers continue to resist campaigns to close down their industry, the capacity for the industry to move forward, for example through the construction of a state of the art pulp mill, is always a battle against Green propaganda.
A Presentation by Dr Ian Woodward which can be viewed at www.tasmaniapulpmill.info details the often repeated fallacies about the proposed pulp mill and explains that in reality the factory will have no significant adverse impact on public health, the marine environment or air quality, that no old growth forest will be used, and that dioxins associated will older chlorine mills have been virtually eliminated so that they are no longer of scientific significance.
Dr Woodward concludes that these facts are unlikely to sway die-hard mill opponents who “will prefer to remain locked inside the familiarity of their self-confirming fallacies rather than accept the contrary realities.”
Adherence to strongly held beliefs which affirm their values, rather than accord with reality, seems to be a characteristic of Greens who run environmental campaigns in Australia. As a consequence they are typically labelled liars by the minorities they target.
******************
Notes
Pulp Mill Fallacies and Realities
Separating the fantasy mill from the real mill
Dr Ian Woodward, Principal Environmental Scientist, Pitt&Sherry
http://tasmaniapulpmill.info/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Pulp_Mill_Fallacies_and_Realities_Ian_Woodward_April_2009.135223348.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Adherence to strongly held beliefs which affirm their values, rather than accord with reality, seems to be a characteristic of Greens who run environmental campaigns in Australia. As a consequence they are typically labelled liars by the minorities they target”.
This weeks competition with its mystery prize is for the best entry for “Which other environmental campaign” could be substituted for the word Greens in the above. The winner will of course need to present a simple but evidence -based discourse on how the beliefs of their nomination “accord with reality”.
ASK a forest worker from Tasmania, a commercial fisherman from South Australia, a sugarcane grower from Queensland or a cattle producer from New South Wales what they think of Greens and a common complaint will be that “Greens tell lies”.
i constantly have to remind myself: this page is supposed to be a “SCIENCE blog”..
A Presentation by Dr Ian Woodward which can be viewed at http://www.tasmaniapulpmill.info details the often repeated fallacies about the proposed pulp mill and explains that in reality the factory will have no significant adverse impact on public health, the marine environment or air quality, that no old growth forest will be used, and that dioxins associated will older chlorine mills have been virtually eliminated so that they are no longer of scientific significance.
the presentation is pretty horrible, especially the start about rational thinking. (people think in RELATIVE terms. this IS rational. saving $50 on a $100 item is different from saving $50 on a $1000 item)
the rest is company propaganda. sorry, but this type of “information” is basically useless. if i ask people on the street, whether they agrre that “companies tell us lies”, i will get a lot of agreement!
Adherence to strongly held beliefs which affirm their values, rather than accord with reality, seems to be a characteristic of Greens who run environmental campaigns in Australia. As a consequence they are typically labelled liars by the minorities they target.
what minorities do tehy target? farmers and fishers? a minority, when compared to greens?
sorry, but this sounds more like a good characterisation of the climate denialists that frequent this page…
The Venn diagram of the sets ‘Greens” and “AGW beleivers” is nearly identical.
Both are subsets of the set of ‘popular social manias’.
Jennifer,
Why this continued propaganda? Its both sad and surreal. Last post on the greenies it was about using words like ‘values’ to insinuate your ideological definition of those you perceive are opposite to you. This time its naked aggression. What’s with this dogmatic, tending to the fanatical, pursuit and painting that ignores all evidence to the contrary.
Is the intensity (perhaps some people, e.g. Jo Nova, would call it religious) of your pursuit a sign that you know your taking an ideological stance has failed and this is just kicking out in frustration? Perhaps a few hillsong choruses will calm you down.
Poor old sod says: “i constantly have to remind myself: this page is supposed to be a “SCIENCE blog”..
Well, if you go to ABOUT (3rd from top Left) you will find “This weblog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in science and the natural environment.”
Greens run warped environmental campaigns – Jennifer on target, sod wrong.
Do Greens and their shills in government tell lies? Yes.
Do large corporations and their shills in government tell lies? Yes.
What else is new?
My impression is that hard-core political hacks of ALL persuasions are mostly liars. The underlying psychology is summed up in Jack Nicholson’s famous on-screen line: “You can’t handle the truth!” (I forget the name of the movie.)
At least part of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which served as the pretext for Lyndon Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War, was a total fabrication. Bush’s claims about WMD in Iraq and about Saddam Hussein being involved in 911 were classic Big Lies, from start to finish. Now Gore and Hansen are getting in on the act. I’m sick of it.
Although I’m very skeptical about how the death penalty is applied in my country, I am in favor of capital punishment for any member of any executive branch of government–federal, state, county, or city–who deliberately lies to the public about anything. And yes, that includes Clintonesque lies about sex.
JeremyC,
Last thread you identified as a Green – Now tell us, do they lie?
It is perhaps a little as Larry suggests – large corporation lie and organisations like Greenpeace are essentially just large corporations?
Also, you might perhaps treat this little series as an intellectual exercise – where I suggest little pieces of information that you can affirm or reject or comment. Down the track I might see if the bits of information from the posts and the threads fit together into any sort of coherent whole.
Now tell us one of the most positive attributes of Greens?
Perhaps they lie because they care?
“A Presentation by Dr Ian Woodward which can be viewed at http://www.tasmaniapulpmill.info details the often repeated fallacies about the proposed pulp mill and explains that in reality the factory will have no significant adverse impact on public health, the marine environment or air quality, that no old growth forest will be used, and that dioxins associated will older chlorine mills have been virtually eliminated so that they are no longer of scientific significance.”
Yes, it’s completely plausible to believe that a huge pulp mill will “have no significant adverse impact on public health, the marine environment or air quality”.
I suggest we let Gunns build the mill on condition that all the supporters of the mill (including you Jennfier) live next door to it, drink the water from the surrounding waterways and eat the fish from the Tamar River.
Fear, over-statement and outright LIES are stock in trade for the Green movement.
Their whole ethos is built on it and their success to date lies with the MSM who love bad news.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination,we have to offer up some scary scenarios,make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective,and being honest.”
Leading catastrophist, Dr Stephen Schneider (“Discover” Magagzine, Oct 1989)…
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.” Al Gore…
Ratbags, hypocrites, leading the useful idiots…
Do you mean that Greens lie all the time? That every single claim that they make and have ever made is/was a lie? If so that’s a big call and probably needs some evidence. If not then you agree that Greens, in amongst their lying, have made some truthful claims with regard to the damage done by industry to the environment and that, at times, they have made useful contribution with reagrd to preventing destruction of the natural environment.
“Do you mean that Greens lie all the time?”
Pat B, you win the strawman of the thread award.
Well said Patrick B. Of course I tell lies – don’t we all? The polite term for it is rhetoric, and we use it to persuade, or entertain others.
Entertaining lies are fun. For example, I love Roald Dahl’s lies, and those of Tove Jansson, in the ‘Finn Family Moomintroll’. Other lies are sneaky and malicious, and we need to guard against them, or see our society collapse in corruption and confusion.
I have suggested before on this blog that Dorothy L. Sayers made a very important point in her essay on the medieval trivium (http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html). Rhetoric is closely linked to clear language (grammar) and clear thinking (logic). The best defence against sneaky, malevolent lies is better education, based on the medieval model. When malevolent liars look like fools, they will desist.
One of that chattering herd here had the hide to state that “Greens” don’t have a problem with climate change being natural. If that’s not a lie what is? Get out the shovel the BS will come thick and fast and there will be all sorts of denials. So far the argument seems to be lots of people lie so it is alright for the “Greens” to do likewise. I notice btw these miscreants here who protest about the science don’t appear much on WUWT or CA.
Almost every green thread kicks off with the 3 stooges, bazza, sod and JC, [they can work out who is Larry] vehemently protesting any diminution of green virtue and high morality. The irony is, of course, that virtue and morality are human attributes. Time and time again greens have positively screamed that humanity and its carbon baggage is undesirable, destructive and fit only to be reduced or eradicated;
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8838
Given that greens think humanity, other than themselves, are THE problem, I think its time that any operative definition of the green mentality considered the possibility that the green is an alien which has infiltrated humanity with the express purpose of causing humanity to self-destruct in paroxysms of guilt and self-hatred. If you regard the green in this light not only does it make the comments by those self-appointed greens here comprehensible but it also makes it unneccessary to ponder the motivations of the pro-AGW crew; one can just say, oh, that’s another one of those aliens which wants to destroy humanity.
As for green lying; too easy; every time one of them opens their gob and asserts that green energy will create jobs they’re lying;
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Jeremy C
The reason we continue to attack greens is because they are anti-science, irrational and destructive. Just before the last Australian federal election, an editorial in the Australian Financial Review – part of the pro-Labor Fairfax group – described the Greens’ economic policy simply, as “dangerous”. They oppose industry, cars, immigration, and policies based on expert advice and several hundred years’ experience, which are designed to improve people’s standard of living. They have a deluded idealism about the past. Their wish to control other people’s lives and living standards is fascist. And to further their aims, I can tell you from first-hand experience, they tell lies about science and economics.
Noun: astroturf –
Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous “grassroots” behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.
The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt (“outreach”, “awareness”, etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research.
Thanks Joel, I assume you still clinging doggedly to your “Assine Comment” award? Green Davey’s comment should be taken to heart by a few of the posters here. That and a bit of Cicero, I mean there’s no way he would have had the success he did in say his prosecution of Verres if he’d just screamed and shouted irrational slogans (as in “they are anti-science, irrational and destructive” or “greens have positively screamed that humanity and its carbon baggage is undesirable, destructive and fit only to be reduced or eradicated”) which are of rhetorical strategies just not very good ones that would convince an audience. Indeed most would find a frothing at the mouth orator quite off putting.
Have a read of:-
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/limitations-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/#more-3896
(via WUWT)
Might cause a bit of carbonation
May be we are being too harsh on the greens. Yes they are quiet on matters that most thinkers know that they know, while they make a big fuss about minor matters that are not a real priority at present and for the future.
This reminds me of an old anecdotic joke of a person who went to the police to inform them that his house was robbed and was blamed by the police for leaving his door unlocked, not having an alarm system and not installing a surveillance system. The mans reply to the police was “yes officer I admit that I was at fault, but did not the thief have any wrong doings as well?”
Speaking about the greens on a global level, I don’t think that the are lieing about science, they are not telling the whole truth on the public level (legally there is a difference!).
As for economics no one needs to lie about it anymore. We (the nearly 7 billion people of the world) are living it. Millions of people have been robbed of their money and property in the name of “free”, “liberal” economics.
Yet, some people continue to profess about this kind of economy and its promises, ignoring the poverty it has and is causing worlwide.
I have lost count of the number of personal conversations I have had with greens on the topic of disinformation and exaggeration on their part which have ended by them stating that, “sometimes one has to lie to get things done”. If there is a common creed amongst these people then this would have to be it.
The next most common response in these types of conversations is along the lines that, “it is impossible to protect the environment and achieve justice and equity at the same time”.
And when these two statements are considered together we are faced with the anatomy of amorality that is excused with an ecological rationalisation. It is entirely at variance with all the core moral values that have been adopted by all the major cultural groupings on the planet.
Would you buy a car, computer, food or medicine from a person who seriously believes that, “sometimes we have to lie to make a sale”? Isn’t this sort of mindset the very antithesis of consumer protection? Isn’t it also a stark admission that the “product” being sold does not actually meet the customers expectations?
Would we willingly submit ourselves to the judgement of a jury that seriously believes that, “it is impossible to maintain law and order and achieve justice and equity at the same time”? Would we willingly send our kids to a school where the teachers believe it is impossible to educate a child while also treating them with fairness and kindness?
I choose to have nothing to do with greens because they have consistently demonstrated their willingness to offend all the values that make the journey more important than the destination. They are people who are defined by what they lack.
Jennifer,
Your reply to my post . Where do I start. You want me to treat this series as an intellectual exercise…. this series has never been about that. Lying…Propaganda. Me a Green….well how have I defined my self as a green… is it your definition instead (ideological, dogmatic, anti reason, agenda led), whose definition, what definition?
You not debating, an ordinary person like me can see that a mile off.
And another thing, do you have any evidence that the IPA has ever been concerned with the future and hopes of the sorts of working people listed in your post.
Cohenite, pull up!….You’re gonna crash…..Pull up! PULL UP!!!
I find it very hard to believe that the Chaser’s Ian Mott has ever had a conversation (dictionary definition) with someone expressing greenie sentiments.
“Thanks Joel, I assume you still clinging doggedly to your “Assine Comment” award?”
Hardly, I think your ridiculous proposition that Jennifer thinks that all greens lie all the time is absurd enough to take down both awards easily!
I’ll agree the greens have had good causes but we’re getting to The Boy Who Cried Wolk scenario aren’t we? How can we seperate the exaggeration and hyperbole from the truth when the Greens have lied and distorted so often in the past?
The presentation by Dr Ian Woodward is anything but propaganda. If the only opposition to it is his example on how to save $50, then that’s pretty sad.
cohenite wrote:
“Almost every green thread kicks off with the 3 stooges, bazza, sod and JC, [they can work out who is Larry] vehemently protesting any diminution of green virtue and high morality.”
Hey, cohenite! What’s your problem? Are you jealous because my avatar has a shoe-phone? Sorry about that. Maybe we should have a private conversation in the Cone of Silence.
Larry,
“Maybe we should have a private conversation in the Cone of Silence.”
I don’t know if mentioned the “cone” intentionally, but do you remember, when in answering the chief in re.
why the cone, Smart said, “well for one thing it’s 3 degrees cooler in here”
Cheers
The forestry workers in Tasmania remind me of the jungle / peasant people of south east Asia.
To stupid to do anything else but exploit the natural world.
“I’ve got kids and a family to feed!!!!”
Yep and they breed like rabbits, making more stupid people…….
I’m sorry, but some feral greenie on the dole, yet putting their life on the line for trees that are
older than time itself, can have my tax money any day.
Stupidity is definitely genetic, ay brainrot?
Where’s Larry?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/146/354955137_0775ce7c1c.jpg?v=0
Brilliant taking of the piss Amused; you’ve captured all the elitism, cognitve dissonance and the result of modern educational defects impacting on the shallow, vainglorious sensibilities of the green persona. Can you take off Al Gore?
Al Gore is stupid
you are stupid.
all people should be given a chance, but if they do something silly, they should be shot.
“Sorry mate, that’s stupid” BANG
Many might remember that after an investigation by the ABC’s Independent Complaints Review Panel, the 7:30 report apologised for misleading its viewers, based upon the claims of the greens against the pulp mill.
The ICRP reviewed the 5 June 2007 program, Pulp mill could taint catch; it found that these breaches constituted a serious misrepresentation of the situation, which could well have resulted in influencing public attitudes against the pulp mill development.
It was found the story gave the false impression that there is a current scallop industry in Bass Strait that may be at risk from the mill. Even though no Scallop fishing had taken place in the area since 1999.
However, the 7.30 report has again reported on the pulp mill last night, this time with a different reporter, and a focus on balancing the claims and counter claims. Perhaps you can judge who is “telling lies”. A video and transcript can be downloaded at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/ scroll down to ‘Gunns pulp mill construction soon to be underway’.
“I think your ridiculous proposition that Jennifer thinks that all greens lie”
Actually if you look carefully it was a question rather that a proposition. Still I am glad you agree that the Greens have “good causes”. What I don’t understand is why you persist calling them “liars”, a rather strong accusation, when you appear to agree that they are in fact pursing issues that you think are important. Is it the case that you agree that Green issues such as environmental degradation are real and not a confection but that you believe that the Greens explanations of these problems are a confection to the extent that they willfully attempt to deceive for the purpose of gaining some advantage? Just want to get things clear.
Patrick B,
Now that would be one of the more disenenous examples one could conceive.
Many more in your quiver, or is it that, AND it’s shot?
Comment by Steve Darke
“I suggest we let Gunns build the mill on condition that all the supporters of the mill (including you Jennfier) live next door to it, drink the water from the surrounding waterways and eat the fish from the Tamar River.”
I believe Steve’s comment is quite sensible, the irony is that it is true! Farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and miners do live in and off the environments in which they work. The big
lie by the greens is that they are better custodians than the people who actually live in these communities. My big concern for the environment is that these local custodians are being disenfranchised by complicated structures of fees and regulations imposed by political parties buying green city votes. Only large multinational organisations that can build compliance costs into their structure and are run by people who feast with the greens in their leafy green outer suburbs can than exploit the resource. We know greens cause poverty in small communities (canadian government rejecting greenpeace’s application for charity status?) and poverty goes hand in hand with over utilization of resources.
So now we know steve is probably a cause of destruction of sustainable communities, I now suggest that in order to avoid the hypocracy of his challenge that he starts living the green dream and live in a house, drive a car, eat food and use a computer provided using only green technologies. Good luck!
Another example of Green exaggeration is the damage done by prescribed burning to native forests.
For many years they have successfully blocked efforts to manage bush fuel on the urban/ bush interface, initially by intransigence by refusing to accept previous reasonable management regimes and now by trying to use bureaucratic inertia to force delay and abandonment of hazard reduction.
This has resulted in the obvious increase of risk of living on the urban/ bush interface.
Fortunately in NSW the new RFS Commissioner is made of sterner stuff and is insisting that reasonable hazard reduction be planned through out the state and that plan be acted upon.
Amused has provided us with a very clear example of why ignorant metrocentrics cannot remain in the same democrativ unit as regional Australians. These people have dehumanised the regional Australian minority in a way that is, well, downright un-Australian.
How can a dominant urban culture, that has now applied deeply offensive notions of peasentry and jungle savagery to other Australians, provide any legitimate mandate for the governance of that regional minority?
How can a culture that regards the use of natural resources as evidence of stupidity possibly be allowed to exercise a majority mandate over the minority that supplies the same value chains that the majority unwittingly exploits?
How can a metrocentric culture, that even regards a regional Australian’s act of procreation as some sort of fall from moral grace, possibly discharge its democratic obligations fairly to that regional minority?
And how can a metrocentric culture that is capable of believing that the feed stock for a pulp mill is “older than time itself”, possibly exercise a mandate that meets the standards of “reasonable men and women in full possession of the facts”?
Tasmania is our only example of a true “Regional State” that is not dominated by an ignorant metropolitan majority. And in the eyes of the mainland urban greens this is the essence of what they find offensive about it. They think it is entirely natural that the legitimate interests and aspirations of the regional minority should be subordinated to ignorant metrocentric whimsy.
Our regions will only have a viable future when they each have their own state government within the Commonwealth. Only then will regional Australians exercise proper management of their own environment and only then will metropolitan Australians actually accept responsibility for the squalid state of their own environment.
Readers should go back over ‘Amused’ post above (May 20th, 7.56pm) and then explain to us how those views are not the views of dangerous green fascist scum.
“Farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and miners do live in and off the environments in which they work. The big
lie by the greens is that they are better custodians than the people who actually live in these communities.”
You just have to roll around the floor laughing at these sort of comments – the sheer sweeping generality of it all – ponder the over-allocated MDB, collapse of the southern blue fin tuna, vast areas covered with noxious weeds, 18% of northern Australian grazing land in class D condition, recent events with dewatering on Ensham mine on the Fitzroy and leaking heavy metals mines (rivers of blue copper!) in the Gulf.
Come on ! Pull the other leg.
I mean that their claims of environmental damage and environmental fears are not to be trusted.
Do you think that all politicians, all cooperate internationals, ie Greenpeace lie all the time ?
ABC Radio has just had Fred Cheney (Reconsiliation Australia) on the subject of the unsuitability of urban-based government decisions as applied to rural Australia.
And he wasn’t just talking about the aboriginal component.
Ian Mott – “Ecologically rationalised”!! A very descriptive term!!
Different subject – check the cartoon at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/20/the-audacity-of-cap-and-trade/
Luke, water in the MDB is allocated on a percentage of available water. The only people demanding more water are the eco-spivs who think perfectly good fresh water is an appropriate substitute for tidal flushing of the Murray Estuary (aka Lake Alexandrina).
And of course, there is also the ignoroids of Adelaide who think they have a god given right to remain the only major city without a desalination plant and continue their population growth at the expense of up stream farmers.
For the record, almost all of our weeds came from urban gardens. And do tell us, was that 18% of northern grazing land classed as Class D in the wet season or the dry? Last I heard was this season has been an absolute ripper and the entire landscape has responded in the same way it has always responded to a good dose of water. They can’t see the trees because the grass is so high.
But thats alright, muggins, have a good roll on the floor. Thats what clowns do, after all.
Yes this does just appear to be propoganda Jennifer.
“rather than accord with reality”
The reality is, we live in a capitalist and economic system that is incapable of recognising
that the very thing needed it to sustain itself is a habitable planet, with functioning ecosystems.
We live our lives according to the business of corporations, who are driven by profit above all else. They don’t care about workers or the environment. These companies and there supportrs continue to tell the public these industries are sustainable, when scientists (who have an understanding of how ecosystems function, (unlike economists and CEO’s)) tell us the opposite.
Ask the majority of Australians if they think old growth forest should become the property of of a corporate entity like Gunns, to be made into pulp and sent to Japan for paper production, and i think you will find a majority NO. Who gave Gunn’s permission to own the social property which is half of Tasmanias native forests? A corrupt government.
Farmers and commercial fisherman cry fowel when the long-term viability of there industry is rightfully questioned. Just look at the salinity, drought, climate shifts, rapidly declining fish stocks. Clear the land of native vegetation and expect rainfall, water flows, ecosystem function to remain stable?
We need to look at alternatives.
Not just in how we produce, but how much we consume and how we function as a society.
Do we want to constantly compete with one-another and drive the lining of the corporate pockets, or do we want to sustainable, community based societies where peoples livelyhoods and the environment are truely valued?
The “lies” continue. Despite the explanation that no old growth will be used for wood supply by Dr Woodward including his charts, that confirm four years of statements by the developer, the Wilderness Society this week claimed “Gunns’ proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill threatens Tasmania’s old-growth forests” see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/18/2573112.htm
The sustainability manager for Gunns has again responded at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/22/2577834.htm pointing out the facts that opponents to the mill simply ignore.
Yes, Cinders, and Nic has demonstrated that his ignorance extend far beyond the presence or otherwise of old growth in the pulp mill feed stock. MDB salinity has been in decline for more than 20 years and most of the salinity in Qld has been correctly, and officially, mapped as “remnant ecosystem” that was of far greater extent prior to settlement. He remains ignorant of the fact that vast areas of the country have far more trees today than they did prior to settlement and that this has reduced river flows in some parts while clearing has improved river flows in other parts.
His head is filled with a vague soup of illdefined absolutes which allow him to equate any modest change, for both better or worse, as a complete cessation of not just ecosystem function but complete planetary habitability as well. It is not helped when he demonstrates his incapacity to distinguish between a fowl and a foul, and then invents his own word, “fowel”, whatever that is, in a vain hope of adding clarity to his manifest incoherence. For pete’s, the guy has not even grasped such rudiments of his own language as, there and their, and he wants us to take his world view seriously?
It would also surprise him to learn that our farmers are always looking at alternatives but time has proven that an assortment of illinformed urban green geese can play no part in either defining the problems or developing any solutions. It would be like getting brain surgery from the village idiot.
Here’s one Tasmanian not taken in by the lies about the pulp mill,and would live quite happily alongside it,just as I lived alongside the woollen mill in Launceston that provided such benefits to the community.It kept my family from hunger.I would say that the greens lie a majority of the time,people are waking up to them,I hope.I am always surprised at how much free time they seem to have for protesting.Who is funding them?Maybe the government?
M. Mott says:
“Would you buy a car, computer, food or medicine from a person who seriously believes that, “sometimes we have to lie to make a sale”?
Well, M’sieur – I’ve bought several houses and more than enough cars from those people – but have done my own checks and balances. Would you buy a used budget from a Goose – sorry Swan without doings checks OF balances?
You also say: “Tasmania is our only example of a true “Regional State” that is not dominated by an ignorant metropolitan majority.”
Well, Ian, ABC radio and TV is certainly dominated by an ignorant minority – Greens Leader – Mr 17% – Bob Brown.
What do you call a girl whose legs are equal length? ….. Noelene>
So Noelene “not taken in by the lies about the pulp mill” Tassie; have you been taken in by Mr Bob Brown’s Green Lies?
Hmmmm
omg.
Yep, Tasmania is definitely leading the country. But not by much, Queensland is just behind them.
Queensland “the smart state”
What ever does it for you!
Tasmania ” don’t worry about gun laws”
Go Port Arthur!
It’s not my problem the Tas forest workers have no cargo (just like the jungle people).
Go and read Guns, germs and steel. This book explains quite clearly why Tasmania is such a basket case…..all to do with geography
Ian,
Keep up the good work, you throw good straight logic that would fell anyone of substance or at least make them think.
Noelene,
The government does not fund them, you do. Politicians do not reach into their own pockets, they reach into yours and hand this money to the squeaky wheels that Ian Mott enjoys teasing. As fishermen, farmers, miners and manufacturers we have been funding the mis-information about what we do. Unfortunately while we allow politics to attract people who could not be successful in any other pursuit, they will do anything to keep their positions while ignoring the longer term, deeper and more complex perspectives.
We are not amused, amused.
Did you pick up that mindless pus from the last meeting of the inner city know-all greens.
Keep it coming, tell us more! Tell us about YOUR day at work and YOUR contribution to society.
Pity you weren’t at Port Arthur.
That figures, poor old ‘amused’ quotes Jared Diamond for his world view. Here is another one of those metrocentric morons who would rather get his factoids from some sort of Californian shonkademic on a mission from Captain Planet. If he had a rudimentary grasp of reality on the ground he would know that Diamond is a cruel joke.
Queensland could become a ‘smart state’ if only we could get rid of the boofheads in the SE Corner.
greens do tell lies, as Jen pointed out in the Australian.
sometimes you need to go to extremes.
what do they say in Queensland?
“If it moves, shoot it….if it grows, cut it down”
Queensland will never be the “smart state”
Err Ian,
“Queensland could become a ’smart state’ if only we could get rid of the boofheads in the SE Corner.”
Watch it those boofheads in the South-east of Queensland have done the old ALP trick of establishing a jerry-mander, whereby their voters “the poor bugger you s” , “the poor bugger me s” and “the poor bugger cuddly animal send money s” can vote in a government from their camp in Brisbane. I say old trick because the ALP established the jerry-mander in the bush that Joh and his mates inherited. The ALP is aware of this and hence the smartest of them all, Beattie flushed the future of Queensland down the toilet to create an impression of a water grid for the thirsty in Brisbane.
Smart? No prospect of water. No property developments. No mates happy to fund Beattie’s lifestyle in the good old U.S. of A.
Well that’s right Jon at WA. And Mottsa is one of those SEQ urban deadshits we’d like to go home. Funny that he won’t turn off the Foxtel, eschew the shopping malls, and piss orf back to the tax minimiser prickle farm where he can plot his overthrow of the nation at Fortress of Solitude. But with most right wing extremist turds bush schools probably aren’t good enough.
Perhaps he could come and live with you mate? He could deck a few Goolwa residents on the way over. Meanwhile we all live at the limits of tolerance. Wish he wasn’t standing outside looking who had their lights on at night – does that sound creepy?
But he won’t be moving – he’s never had it so good.
If he was blogging out of Come by Chance he might get some respect – but alas just another astroturfing reactionary getting older and more sour.
Of course why visit the outback when you can sit on the beach and watch it wash past?
I see Luke has missed a few bowel movements, again.
Yes, Jon, the least populous electorate in Queensland is the ALP seat of Mt Isa, with only half as many voters as is the norm in SEQ. Move the boundary in any direction and it changes hands.
Moreover, the centralists have done such a thorough job of stuffing up regional health services that almost half of all new settlers in SEQ come from regional Qld. They are afraid of what Labor’s health system will do to their family. This increases the pace of SEQ population growth, exacerbates the pressure on existing infrastructure and compounds the cost of providing additional infrastructure.
They don’t even build public housing or classrooms in country towns any more, they are all made in a factory in a safe labor seat in SEQ and are shipped off on a truck. Not a single job is created in the town where the house goes to but rest assured, the value of the house shows up in the government accounts as money spent in the region.
And then the dumb turds wonder why things are so difficult and then use the scale of the problems in SEQ as an excuse to strip away property rights all over the state. These incompetent slime balls are downright toxic for regional Qld.
But folks the Grande hypocrisy is that he’s in SEQ being part of it all !! LOL !
Now where were we – OK Lantana and Rubber Vine ornamental. But Prickly Acacia planted for sheep? Mesquite for homestead trees. Parthenium from Texas tractors.
I guess we blame Calatropis on Taliban camel drivers?
BTW I voted for Lawrence
What next – Motty does demography with his usual grace and style. “These incompetent slime balls are downright toxic for regional Qld.” I thought he was developing as our very own Ayn Rand until he calls for more government intervention to fix previous intervention. But he really needs to read Diamond again to discover it is part of the human condition to leave the farm and head for the big smoke ( well you know what I mean ) . Besides it reduces inbreeding. Anyway South East Qld is one of the worlds hot spots in terms of AGW cause and impact (settle, Motty, it is per capita ) so extreme drought that gave us the water grid plus some of the current problems that are helping shape our evolving climatology might frighten off a few potential migrants, or make a few more decide to head for the hills.
No, Bazza, it is part of the human condition for the young to explore places other than home. But if their home is in an economically colonised region, where a large portion of the tax money does not return as services (ie is spent on metropolitan overheads or is incorporated into urban congestion costs), then there are fewer opportunities to attract and retain the young when they are ready to settle down.
In Australia we have State revenue and expenditure at 15% of GDP/GNE. So when metropolitan overheads and additional congestion costs amount to just 20% of that State expenditure it means that 3% of regional GDP (ie 1/5th of 15%) leaks from the regional economy each year. That means that the regional economies must grow by 3% each year merely to avoid economic contraction.
If the region was self governing, and most of the population was within 3 hours of the new capital, then this 3% leakage would stop. Actual economic growth would return to the region, quality jobs and opportunities would return and the kids, (those most likely to recognise those opportunities) would soon follow.
The metrocentric community choose to regard urban drift as a natural phenomena because they don’t even have a word that describes the urban equivalent of parochialism. They are so self centred that they are incapable of recognising situations where they place their own urban interests above those of the wider community they claim to govern for.
They justify this selfishness on grounds of greater efficiency of centralised systems and the prevention of duplication. But they conveniently ignore the far greater diseconomies of scale that are also produced by centralised governance. Metropolitan infrastructure costs no longer just increase by addition in line with population increase. Once the capital city region gets over two million we find that infrastructure problems and their costs increase exponentially. They multiply rather than simply increase by addition.
And when Sydney hits 6 million, Melbourne hits 5 million and Bris-vegas hits 4 million it might eventually sink in that the degraded quality of life the residents endure has had nothing to do with the natural order and everything to do with malgovernance, collective narcissism and myopic vision.
And are you leading by example. No. You’re full of it. Please please go back to the prickle farm !
Good luck with rounding up a few rednecks to vote with you. Meanwhile we’re tired of your whinging and subsiding the bush, spending OUR tax money fixing up your environmental mismanagement, and paying for indulgent hobby farms, so get back in line.
Strategically the Greens mistruths and religious zeal win them some battles but ultimately marginalise them into a narrow slice of the population and political vote. Those with a balanced viewpoint are soon pushed away – intellectually and morally.
Yeah, right, Luke. You’re doing the bush a favour by spending their GST money on tunnels and stadiums. It may surprise you to learn that people in Cairns or Townsville don’t get much benefit from the $800 million spent on the Tugun by-pass or the airport tunnel. And as the population of regional Qld is 1/3rd of the State total then we have every right to ask why, if 2/3rds of the population got an $800 million bit of road, then where is regional Queensland’s $400 fair share, on top of their existing road budget?
And they have every right to ask, if 2.5 million people in SEQ can have a stadium worth $250 million ($100/person) then where is the proportionate additional investment in sports facilities in Roma, Proserpine or Cooktown? That is over and above their existing fields etc.
Proportion of the Arts budget spent in SEQ = 98%.
Lets face it, you represent a parasite that doesn’t even recognise the host/victim’s right to exist at all.
C. Woodward,
I agree with you that people with intellect and morals would become disillusioned with the way the greens operate…if they actually knew how they operated..
I have seen first hand how they play the propanganda game in forestry.. and its not an even playing field.. rational, scientific explanations for native forest silviculture and harvesting never make it to the general population through the media compared to tree platforms, bongos and chaining.
As foresters, we have never had, or maybe weren’t as effective at developing a forum to be able to explain, for example, that:
1, for biological reasons some species of tree need clearfall harvesting if regeneration is to produce a similar forest in 100years
2, That clearfell harvesting is always followed by regeneration..yes it looks ugly for a year or two but it is never left as a cleared “bombsite” as depicted in the green photos, and in 80 years these harvested areas have fooled greenies who have incorrectly identified it as ‘old growth’.
3, That chipping native timber is always the low end recovery product from a harvesting operation and that higher value structural or feature grade timber is always the priority. If it wasn’t chipped it would be burnt.
I have highly intelligent friends and acquaintances who fully believe the green messages the media have progated..its not their fault..they just weren’t given the opportunity to make an informed choice. The greens use propaganda techniques that would make the nazi’s proud and that are employed constantly and to great effect..
Its dangerous to say that greens only win small battles but are then marginalised politically. WA has now just about lost a native forest industry that supports regional communities and is based on solar power (the only truly green industry). Thats a pretty big ecoomic and social loss to the community and has done nothing except support coal fired industry creating steel and concrete products with the resultant larger energy inputs and pollution production. In the future I believe and sincerely hope that this will be seen for the stupid decision that it is…
As foresters, we werent prepared to play the spin game, prefering the science to speak on our behalf..unfortunately this didnt capture the media or public’s imagination like a PR consultant.. we weren’t prepared to donate to green support funds…..how many protests have we heard against mining in WA where whole forest ecosystems are removed?
Don’t be fooled into thinking that they aren’t dangerous liars!!