Emission Trading and climate change

Page 103 of 377 FirstFirst ... 3 53 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 153 203 ... LastLast
Results 5,101 to 5,150 of 18819
  1. #5101
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Again: still waiting... a simple yes or no answer is fine.

    Does the Parliament have the numbers to pass a proposed Bill? Yes, or no?
    What on earth are you trying to prove here.?

    Providing no one gets spooked yes they do have the numbers. Thats why there will be plenty of spooking going on

    Gaurantee you they wont have the numbers at the next election.

    Just one more thing, if they try and get transport included the will not have the numbers. So what does that tell you?

    A useless tax that achieves nothing achieves even less without transport making it an absolute joke. LOL I would love to be a fly on the wall while they negotiate this mess.
    Think the greens will be happy?

    This has a loooong way to go buddy.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  2. #5102
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Right on time.

    This expalins exactly what I was saying. Now do they have the numbers? I doubt it. This has sealed JuLIARS fate.

    No way will she get this deal through IMO she has wedged herself LOL. Way to smart by half.

    Andrew Bolt.

    It is in the Greens’ strong interest to go to the election looking tougher than Labor on global warming. They will not want to do what the Australian Democrats fatally did with the GST and trade off their hard-line position, which would lose them the purity that so appeals to their shiny-eyed and irresponsible audience. And so they may yet demand more than Gillard dare give- such as a carbon dioxide tax on petrol, too, or not compensation for “big polluters” - leaving Gillard with no deal and a fear campaign on petrol to hose down, too, with her credibility already shot to ribbons.
    I’d start hitting the phones, Bill. Oh, yes, and you, too, Greg.
    I would be very worried if I were you guys.

    Read it all here.Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  3. #5103
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    3,278

    Default Can a group of scientists in California end the war on climate change?

    Growing old is compulsory, growing up is not.
    http://www.wet-seal.com.au/waterproofing/locations.html

  4. #5104
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Right on time.

    This expalins exactly what I was saying. Now do they have the numbers? I doubt it. This has sealed JuLIARS fate.

    No way will she get this deal through IMO she has wedged herself LOL. Way to smart by half.



    I would be very worried if I were you guys.

    Read it all here.Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Mate, don't be so ignorant. We all know the numbers are there. We all know that (at this stage) 2 Libs are even going to cross the floor.

    Ignorance sits well with the line taken by people who think AGW is "a load of crap".

  5. #5105
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Mate, don't be so ignorant. We all know the numbers are there. We all know that (at this stage) 2 Libs are even going to cross the floor.

    Ignorance sits well with the line taken by people who think AGW is "a load of crap".
    Want to have a bet on 2 libs crossing the floor?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  6. #5106
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Even when silence is only an option....death remains a standard inclusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    SbD has said on many occasions that he will no longer post here too LOL.
    True.

    But ultimately this thread is better than recreational drugs. And that is without taking the wider world issues that it claims to be discussing into account...no mean feat.

    I figure if I behave like the majority of posters and don't post anything logical, sensible or simply remotely a) informative; and/or b) sane.....then I won't be harming anyone, anything or even my reputation/s (which are typically neither anyone, anything or anyonething) by playing the primadonna card occasionally. After all...you have to shut up and take stock even just occasionally.

    For instance, here's what I learned by staying quiet for ten whole pages this past weekend: Every bolt needs a nut - but one Bolt and a few thousand nuts is not going to help anyone.
    Last edited by SilentButDeadly; 28th Feb 2011 at 05:32 PM. Reason: Improved quality of one-liner....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #5107
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Oh you foolish foolish hypocrite......WARNING: here be potentially sensible discourse

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldsaltoz View Post
    Quite rightly. It is an effort to lauded. But it won't 'end the war'. Just open/close/divert/divest yet another front.

    Put simply....many here in this place don't accept the fundamental physics of climate let alone whether the world is warming or not....or the reality (or otherwise) of human influence on these processes. This won't fix that

    And by their own admission, the Berkeley Project is only examining the question of temperature.

    To whit....and I quote:
    "Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."

    Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2010)

    So....nope. There will be no end to hostilities. A shame...but there you go.
    Last edited by SilentButDeadly; 28th Feb 2011 at 06:12 PM. Reason: I didn't touch it. But I am worried that it might come across as a little 'too' sane for this thread.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  8. #5108
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Children, grand-kids anybody?

    Let's just pass the problem down. Gees, it's so much easier isn't?!
    What a load of crqap. This is the typical psichop to be used when everything else fails.
    We do it for the children

    http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2011/0...s-hard-to.html
    PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

    After much reading in the relevant literature, the following conclusions seem warranted to me. You should find evidence for all of them appearing on this blog from time to time:


    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "HEAT TRAPPING GAS". A gas can become warmer by contact with something warmer or by infrared radiation shining on it or by adiabatic (pressure) effects but it cannot trap anything. Air is a gas. Try trapping something with it!


    Greenies are the sand in the gears of modern civilization -- and they intend to be.


    The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Yet at the opening of 2011 we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen: "We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of decades". Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: "Lux in tenebris lucet". There is still much darkness in the minds of men.


    The repeated refusal of Warmist "scientists" to make their raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol that it amounts to a confession in itself. Note, for instance Phil Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Looking for things that might be wrong with a given conclusion is of course central to science. But Warmism cannot survive such scrutiny. So even after "Climategate", the secrecy goes on.


    Most Greenie causes are at best distractions from real environmental concerns (such as land degradation) and are more motivated by a hatred of people than by any care for the environment


    Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists


    ‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. -- Prof. P. Stott


    Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra's (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen's dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT)


    The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they're too yellow to admit they're really Reds. So Lenin's birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day. Even a moderate politician like Al Gore has been clear as to what is needed. In "Earth in the Balance", he wrote that saving the planet would require a "wrenching transformation of society".


    For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder....


    Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.


    Policies: The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991, p. 104) published by the "Club of Rome", a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." See here for many more examples of prominent Greenies saying how much and how furiously they hate you.


    The conventional wisdom of the day is often spectacularly wrong. The most popular and successful opera of all time is undoubtedly "Carmen" by Georges Bizet. Yet it was much criticized when first performed and the unfortunate Bizet died believing that it was a flop. Similarly, when the most iconic piece of 20th century music was first performed in 1913-- Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" -- half the audience walked out. Those of us who defy the conventional wisdom about climate are actually better off than that. Unlike Bizet and Stravinsky in 1913, we KNOW that we will eventually be vindicated -- because all that supports Warmism is a crumbling edifice of guesswork ("models").


    Al Gore won a political prize for an alleged work of science. That rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?


    See the original global Warmist in action here: "The icecaps are melting and all world is drowning to wash away the sin"


    I am not a global warming skeptic nor am I a global warming denier. I am a global warming atheist. I don't believe one bit of it. That the earth's climate changes is undeniable. Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal. But I see NO evidence to say that mankind has had anything to do with any of the changes observed -- and much evidence against that claim.


    Seeing that we are all made of carbon, the time will come when people will look back on the carbon phobia of the early 21st century as too incredible to be believed


    Meanwhile, however, let me venture a tentative prophecy. Prophecies are almost always wrong but here goes: Given the common hatred of carbon (Warmists) and salt (Food freaks) and given the fact that we are all made of carbon, salt, water and calcium (with a few additives), I am going to prophecy that at some time in the future a hatred of nitrogen will emerge. Why? Because most of the air that we breathe is nitrogen. We live at the bottom of a nitrogen sea. Logical to hate nitrogen? NO. But probable: Maybe. The Green/Left is mad enough. After all, nitrogen is a CHEMICAL -- and we can't have that!


    The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."


    The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?


    For many people, global warming seems to have taken the place of "The Jews" -- a convenient but false explanation for any disliked event. Prof. Brignell has some examples.


    Global warming skeptics are real party-poopers. It's so wonderful to believe that you have a mission to save the world.


    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  9. #5109
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Continued from above

    There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct") in many people that causes them to delight in going without material comforts. Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people -- with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. Many Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an ascetic way. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving".


    The claim that oil is a fossil fuel is another great myth and folly of the age. They are now finding oil at around seven MILES beneath the sea bed -- which is incomparably further down than any known fossil. The abiotic oil theory is not as yet well enough developed to generate useful predictions but that is also true of fossil fuel theory


    Help keep the planet Green! Maximize your CO2 and CH4 output!


    Global Warming=More Life; Global Cooling=More Death.


    The inconvenient truth about biological effects of "Ocean Acidification"



    SOME MORE BRIEF OBSERVATIONS WORTH REMEMBERING:


    "The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken


    'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe


    “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -- Voltaire


    Bertrand Russell knew about consensus: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”


    There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. - Duc de La Rochefoucauld, French writer and moralist (1613-1680)


    "In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy". (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland). No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to.


    "Almost all professors of the arts and sciences are egregiously conceited, and derive their happiness from their conceit" -- Erasmus


    "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." -- Thomas H. Huxley


    “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” -- John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001


    'The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman


    Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools.


    "One of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world" -- George Orwell, 1943 in Can Socialists Be Happy?


    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell


    Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise reported by the U.N. "experts" for the entire 20th century (a rise so small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally without instruments) shows, if anything, that the 20th century was a time of exceptional temperature stability.


    Recent NASA figures tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th century. If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA?


    Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter because they cover only the USA -- and the rest of the world is warming nicely. But it is not. There has NEVER been any evidence that the Southern hemisphere is warming. See here. So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten.


    The latest scare is the possible effect of extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).


    In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. Henry's Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN's own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models' guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades.


    The chaos theory people have told us for years that the air movement from a single butterfly's wing in Brazil can cause an unforeseen change in our weather here. Now we are told that climate experts can "model" the input of zillions of such incalculable variables over periods of decades to accurately forecast global warming 50 years hence. Give us all a break!


    If you doubt the arrogance [of the global warming crowd, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue


    A "geriatric" revolt: The scientists who reject Warmism tend to be OLD! Your present blogger is one of those. There are tremendous pressures to conformity in academe and the generally Leftist orientation of academe tends to pressure everyone within it to agree to ideas that suit the Left. And Warmism is certainly one of those ideas. So old guys are the only ones who can AFFORD to declare the Warmists to be unclothed. They either have their careers well-established (with tenure) or have reached financial independence (retirement) and so can afford to call it like they see it. In general, seniors in society today are not remotely as helpful to younger people as they once were. But their opposition to the Warmist hysteria will one day show that seniors are not completely irrelevant after all. Experience does count (we have seen many such hysterias in the past and we have a broader base of knowledge to call on) and our independence is certainly an enormous strength. Some of us are already dead. (Reid Bryson and John Daly are particularly mourned) and some of us are very senior indeed (e.g. Bill Gray and Vince Gray) but the revolt we have fostered is ever growing so we have not labored in vain.


    Scientists have politics too -- sometimes extreme politics. Read this: "This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism... I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child." -- Albert Einstein


    The "precautionary principle" is a favourite Greenie idea -- but isn't that what George Bush was doing when he invaded Iraq? Wasn't that a precaution against Saddam getting or having any WMDs? So Greenies all agree with the Iraq intervention? If not, why not?


    A classic example of how the sensationalist media distort science to create climate panic is here.


    There is a very readable summary of the "Hockey Stick" fraud here



    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  10. #5110
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    And some more

    The Lockwood & Froehlich paper was designed to rebut Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" film. It is a rather confused paper -- acknowledging yet failing to account fully for the damping effect of the oceans, for instance -- but it is nonetheless valuable to climate atheists. The concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years (See the first sentence of the paper) really is invaluable. And the basic fact presented in the paper -- that solar output has in general been on the downturn in recent years -- is also amusing to see. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun's influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even have been the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards. See my post of 7.14.07 and very detailed critiques here and here and here for more on the Lockwood paper and its weaknesses.


    As the Greenies are now learning, even strong statistical correlations may disappear if a longer time series is used. A remarkable example from Sociology: "The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correla@tion coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic condi@tions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his anal@ysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic condi@tions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added." So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. In the Greenie case, the correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise stopped in 1998 -- but that could have been foreseen if measurements taken in the first half of the 20th century had been considered.


    Relying on the popular wisdom can even hurt you personally: "The scientific consensus of a quarter-century ago turned into the arthritic nightmare of today."


    Greenie-approved sources of electricity (windmills and solar cells) require heavy government subsidies to be competitive with normal electricity generators so a Dutch word for Greenie power seems graphic to me: "subsidieslurpers" (subsidy gobblers)
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  11. #5111
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Read the full version here:

    Global Warming as Religion and not Science

    Global Warming as Religion and not Science
    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
    Blaise Pascal
    It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.
    Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
    Faith and scepticism
    Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:
    The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
    Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers. From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment. The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. There is no evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect. The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other.
    Sin and absolution
    It is in the nature of religion to be authoritarian and proscriptive. Essential to this is the concept of sin – a transgression in thought or deed of theological principles.
    Original sin in the older religions derived from one of the founts of life on earth – sex. The new religion goes even further back to the very basis of all life – carbon. Perhaps the fundamental human fear is fear of life itself. The amazing propensity of carbon to form compounds of unlimited complexity made the existence of life possible, while its dioxide is the primary foodstuff, the very start of the food chain. Every item of nutriment you consume started out as atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is therefore the ideal candidate for original sin, since no one can escape dependence on it. This manna that gave us life is now regularly branded in media headlines as “pollution” and “toxic”: surely one of the most perverse dysphemisms in the history of language.


    Proselytes and evangelists
    Most religions seek to grow by means of proselytism. Science does not seek or need converts. It teaches those that are willing to learn, but it does not impose itself on those who are indifferent. Religions (at least those that are successful) have a different imperative. A growing cohort of believers reinforces the beliefs of existing adherents and participating in the quest for converts helps assuage the inevitable doubts they might harbour. Successful religions are structured to encompass this expansionary mechanism. Those who can recruit others to the cause are therefore held in high regard.


    Demagogues and hypocrites
    Demagoguery is also, therefore, a feature of religion. Some people have the capacity to hold the masses in their thrall. It is a mysterious art, as their skills of oratory do not often stand up to any sort of critical examination. They are idols of the moment, who often turn out to have feet of clay, as so frequently seems to happen with charismatic TV preachers.
    One of the most notorious demagogues of the godless religion is Al Gore. He is certainly no great orator, but he makes up for it with chutzpah. His disregard for truth is exemplified by his characteristic and ubiquitous pose in front of a satellite photograph of hurricane Katrina. Even some of the most vehement climate “scientists” refrain from connecting that particular isolated and monstrously tragic event with global warming.

    Infidels and apostates
    Religions vary in their treatment of unbelievers, which ranges from disregard to slaughter. The new religion relies at present on verbal assault and character assassination, though there are those who would go further. They call the infidels “deniers” – a cheap and quite despicable verbal reference to the Holocaust. There is a sustained campaign to deny the deniers any sort of public platform for their views.



    Sacrifice and ritual
    It is part of human nature that we do not like to admit making a mistake, even to ourselves. So if, for example, we buy a magic device that by some mysterious means improves the fuel efficiency of our car, we drive a little more conservatively in order to prove that we have not been had. Religions exploit this weakness as a means creating and reinforcing commitment. If someone can be induced or coerced into making a sacrifice they then have a stake in the cause.
    Windmills, for example, are the symbols of power, not physical power (of which they are derisorily short) but political and religious power. They are like the great domes of temples, the statues of Saddam or the big “M” arch of MacDonald’s. Windmills are ugly: they destroy the visual (and aural) landscape, but that is their purpose. They are part of the sacrifice.

    Prophecy and divination
    In the real world attempts at prophecy always come to a bad end. Only in religious texts and the currently popular fantasy fiction do prophecies come true. H G Wells, in The shape of things to come, successfully predicted the mechanised War, as did Winston Churchill, but little else, and the film that Wells closely supervised now provides rather comic entertainment (but wonderful music).
    The main form of modern divination, however, is computer models. Forty odd years ago an instruction passed round the Faculty of Engineering of the University of London that no PhDs were to be awarded on the basis of computer models unsupported by measurement. As T S Eliot asked in Choruses from The Rock
    Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
    Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

    Now, huge and generously funded university and government departments do nothing but develop computer models, involving assumptions about physical interactions that are still not understood by science. Their dubious (to say the least) results are used by the new international priesthood to frighten the people into conformity.



    Puritans and killjoys
    No one has bettered Mencken’s definition of Puritanism – the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. It is an unfortunate characteristic of many varieties of religion that this characteristic is to the fore and Global Warming is far from being an exception. Nothing the proponents offer involves an improvement or even maintenance of human contentment, quite the opposite in fact. You might think that any philosophy of life would involve swings and roundabouts, good and bad, but think again. Virtually everything you enjoy is now sinful – holidays, driving your car, having a comfortable temperature in your home, being free from the stink of rotting garbage, and on and on.
    As with the flagellants of old, for some people a feeling of self-righteousness not only transcends all discomforts, but derives from them. The rest of us have to be coerced into conformity.
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  12. #5112
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Continued

    Censorship and angles
    Freedom of speech and publication is at the very heart of science. Even the most foolish of hypotheses is allowed to be offered for examination. In much of religion the opposite is true; challenging the established dogma is heresy, for which the punishment has ranged from ostracism to horrific torture and death. One of the greatest ironies produced by the successful policy of entryism by the Eco-theologians is that it is none other than the Royal Society that has been orchestrating the attempt to censor any deviation from establishment beliefs. Authoritarian politicians, such as Congressman Brad Miller, would give such suppression the force of law.


    Control and taxation
    Religion has always played an important part in the imposition of authority. For many centuries it took the form of the “Divine Right of Kings” or the “Mandate of Heaven”. Once you get the people to believe, you can get away with almost any imposition. The alliance between the shaman and the legislator has long been the very foundation of authoritarianism. Even when the dogma is a godless one, such as Marxism, it is imposed with religious fervour, for that is the way to induce conformity.
    People now accept laws that restrict their liberty and standard of living, which would once have provoked riots, because they are cloaked in a quasi-religious formula of environmentalism. So-called environmental burdens, for example, now greatly outweigh the incremental effect of the poll tax that met with such violent opposition in England, yet are now meekly accepted, as is the parasitic presence of various forms of snooper, who even invade people’s dustbins.


    Contradictions and irrationality
    Traditional religions not only tolerated contradiction and irrationality, they embrace them as part of the mystique. Words and phrases are repeated ad nauseam and in strange contexts, until they lose all meaning and become self-preserving mantras.
    Contradictions and irrationality also abound in the modern theocratic world. The EU, for example, gratuitously destroys a tiny industry making traditional barometers, on the grounds of an irrational fear of mercury, then imposes the use of fluorescent light bulbs that distribute that same dreaded substance in huge quantities across the continent, all on the basis of the threat of global warming.


    Wealth and power
    Some organisms develop the ingredients to survive and multiply, so it is with business and religions. It is characteristic of businesses that they dispose of the entrepreneurs who create them and are taken over by a different breed of corporate manager: so it is with religions. The brutally suppressed troglodytes who were the early Christians of Rome were a different breed from the cardinals, bishops and abbots who bestrode mediaeval Europe and lived the opulent life. There were also, of course, the humble and saintly mendicant friars. The equivalents of all these varieties exist within the new movement.
    Money is the basis of the new religion. It poured in from various foundations (the so-called ketchup money) and naïve donors. The activists found that they had to maintain and innovate their product (anxiety) to keep the income rising, so they had to keep increasing the imaginary threats both in intensity and number.

    Confession and salvation
    One of the last bastions of science to fall was the British Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Science and Manufacture. It has a Chief Executive who was formerly one of the most powerful green civil servants. It now offers its fellows the opportunity to make public confession of their sins in the form of their “carbon footprint”. They even have a programme of “Carbon Control” directed at seven to fourteen year olds, urging them to take control of their carbon emissions. Young children now have nightmares about the burning planet, just as some of us once had nightmares about burning in hell unless we believed, and then lay awake at night wondering whether we believed or not, or what “believe” actually means. The ruthless exploitation of the receptivity of the young, and their relentless indoctrination, is one of the less pleasant characteristics of much of religion. As the Jesuits say “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”



    Envoi
    The human spirit is sick. It soared during the enlightenment of the eighteenth century. It flowered during the nineteenth. It beat off the tyrants of the twentieth century. Now, at an alarming rate, it is surrendering its freedoms to a concocted religion based on fraudulent science. Of course, it is not only science that has suffered in the overwhelming cultural downturn. The great artistic tradition has given way to displays of dead animals and soiled beds. In much of what passes for literature and drama, the expletives remain while the loftier aspirations of humanity are deleted. Entertainment is debased by displays of banality, cruelty and vacuous, groundless celebrity. It was science, however, that gave us lives of a length, comfort and healthiness that were unthought-of, even within human memory; a gift that is cold-bloodedly, but covertly, being denied to millions in poorer parts of the world. Extremists of the new religion regard humanity as an inconvenience or a pestilence that can be disposed of (not including themselves, of course).
    Above all, science represented the triumph of humanity over the primitive superstitions that haunted our ancestors, a creation of pure reason, a monument to that evolutionary (or, if you prefer, God-given) miracle of the human brain. It is too valuable just to be tossed away like a used tissue. But who will speak for science when the barbarian is already inside the gate?
    John Brignell
    June 2007
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  13. #5113
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    I hope we all saw Windsor's comments re: Tony Abbot sucking up to him during the caretaker stage?


  14. #5114
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    I hope we all saw Windsor's comments re: Tony Abbot sucking up to him during the caretaker stage?

    Who cares, what we have is now. He cant vote for it if it includes fuel period. The greens cant vote for it if it does not. Who will break first.

    Sharpen up your arguments.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  15. #5115
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Who cares, what we have is now. He cant vote for it if it includes fuel period. The greens cant vote for it if it does not. Who will break first.

    Sharpen up your arguments.
    Who cares?

    Ok then, who cares about your footer given that it is a past event.

    True, what we have is the here and the now.

  16. #5116
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Who cares?

    Ok then, who cares about your footer given that it is a past event.

    True, what we have is the here and the now.
    Yes and what we have is a lying, coniving PM that will be dusted at the next election
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  17. #5117
    Daniel Morgan
    Guest

    Default The ooly dooly bird

    Hello,

    What is the anticipated Australian revenue from this carbon tax?
    Taking into consideration all aspects of the tax.

    The tax,

    increased fuel cost,
    increased gst on fuel,
    increased transport costs,
    increased gst on transport costs,
    increased power costs,
    increased gst on power costs,
    increased cost of goods because of increased transport and power etc,
    increased gst because of increased cost of goods,

    People pay tax

    less spending money,
    decreased affordability,
    lower standard of living,
    less money spent,
    less workers required,
    less jobs,
    more small businesses go to the wall,
    less jobs available,

    More people on the unemployed/welfare,

    Less people paying tax,

    Mr Swan said - low income people will not be out of pocket,

    So more money to these unemployed/welfare people,

    But less taxpayers,

    Get my drift,

    How much is it going to cost Australia to have a carbon tax?

    E&OE.

  18. #5118
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    BTW I wonder where Woodbe is posting nowadays. Gee I miss him

    And it seems that our other resident warmers have gon a bit quite of late too.

    So much fun watching them try to defend the scam.
    I've been in Melbourne the last two weeks staying in this place in Kew that is a black hole for wireless broadband, but it didn't matter for long. The weather here killed my laptop so it's disappeared into Toshiba's service dept which is another black hole where nothing happens. Too busy enjoying what Melb has to offer (haven't been here for 30 years) to even check the forum. Had to borrow a laptop and drive down the road to find a spot where there is a connection to do this. Back in warmer climate next week (no, not Perth) In the meantime it looks like Julia has got things under control.

  19. #5119
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,401

    Default

    How much is it going to cost Australia to have a carbon tax?

    Probably a lot less than it costs us when OPEC decides to jack up the oil price. We seem to survive those price hikes so we may handle this. Of course if previous govts had implemented energy independance policies we could have spared ourselves all the grief those oil price shocks have caused.

    Examples of previous tax increases are easy to find. Like the GST and Medicare. Some forum members struggle with the concept of computer modelling but economists from both sides of politics accept it as a valid method of assessing the impact of economic changes. So when this policy is fully developed there will be an assessment of its effects. There will be answers to all your questions by people who actually know something about the subject.

  20. #5120
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    How much is it going to cost Australia to have a carbon tax?

    Probably a lot less than it costs us when OPEC decides to jack up the oil price. We seem to survive those price hikes so we may handle this. Of course if previous govts had implemented energy independance policies we could have spared ourselves all the grief those oil price shocks have caused.

    Examples of previous tax increases are easy to find. Like the GST and Medicare. Some forum members struggle with the concept of computer modelling but economists from both sides of politics accept it as a valid method of assessing the impact of economic changes. So when this policy is fully developed there will be an assessment of its effects. There will be answers to all your questions by people who actually know something about the subject.
    So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.

    Alright for me cause I will have a price increase to cover it.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  21. #5121
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    [I]So when this policy is fully developed there will be an assessment of its effects. There will be answers to all your questions by people who actually know something about the subject.
    Thank god someone is sensible enough so as to not discount the global consensus.

  22. #5122
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I'd ask for my money back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    1 + 1 = 2. Yeah? Follow? And if you get a high enough number, a thing called policy gets made.
    A hypothesis is a scientific concept.

    Empirical evidence supports or refutes this concept.

    Perhaps a little more research than a Law and Political Science degree is going to be required after all.

  23. #5123
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    A hypothesis is a scientific concept.

    Empirical evidence supports or refutes this concept.

    Perhaps a little more research than a Law and Political Science degree is going to be required after all.
    It's not a hard question.


  24. #5124
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I'm like a pokie machine.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Shhh! Don't mention bandwidth or the DR will post 20 a day

    We've plenty in the sack.
    When they push my buttons, I can't help but make noise and then pay out on them.


  25. #5125
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    I wish I could stay and chat.

    Gotta go and do some work.

  26. #5126
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Seriously, go get your money back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Again: still waiting... a simple yes or no answer is fine.

    Does the Parliament have the numbers to pass a proposed Bill? Yes, or no?
    The Parliament always has the numbers to pass a proposed bill, it is designed that way.

  27. #5127
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What a champion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post

    I would be very worried if I were you guys.

    Read it all here.Abbott promises to repeal the tax Gillard promised not to pass | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    The biggest argument JuLIAR gave for this farcical Carbon Dioxide Tax was that it gave business certainty. This argument was ridiculous at the time:

    Ms Gillard said there were statements from the Business Council of Australia saying business needed certainty on carbon pricing

    Gillard says carbon tax will create jobs
    With Mr Rabbit's move, there is now no certainty, so there is no point to the tax!

    Seeking to concentrate the debate on the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard's honesty and ''lack of mandate'' for a carbon tax, rather than on climate science or the as-yet-unresolved details of the proposal, Mr Abbott said of the carbon price: ''We will oppose it in opposition. We will rescind it in government.''
    The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, said there was so much uncertainty about the details of Labor's plan as well as the Coalition's intended ''direct action'' alternative that all options had to stay on the table. This included the possibility of ''rolling back'' the tax.
    But the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Anderson, backed the rationale argued in shadow cabinet - that it was desirable and possible to scrap the proposed scheme during its first three to five years, when it was in effect working as a tax rather than as a market.


    Business demands certainty on carbon
    There goes the certainty argument.

    There goes the reason for the tax.

  28. #5128
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Defies belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Mate, don't be so ignorant. We all know the numbers are there. We all know that (at this stage) 2 Libs are even going to cross the floor.
    Wow!

    First, you admit that there is no policy.

    But then you use your psychic powers to predict this policy ahead of its release, then also use your psychic powers to predict how all MP's and Senators will vote on this fictional policy. Down to the exact numbers! I don't suppose you have next weeks lotto numbers?

    Did you learn these esoteric skills in your Law units or your Politics units?

    Didn't your Law lecturers mention a concept know as "evidence"?

    Didn't you learn that age old adage that "a week is a long time in politics"?

    If you did go to university to study these subjects, which I am highly doubtful of given your performance here, then our education system is in much more trouble than even I thought.

  29. #5129
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I definitely don't believe you now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    I hope we all saw Windsor's comments re: Tony Abbot sucking up to him during the caretaker stage?

    You claim to have a political science degree, yet you call negotiations for Westminster government "sucking up", even though both major parties are required to engage in this process to form government.

    You don't even have the political insight to understand why Windsor made these comments at this particular point in time.

    You obviously didn't even follow the federal election post-poll negotiations closely enough to understand Windsor's hypocrisy on this issue.

    This was a historic political moment in our nations history, and you do not even understand what happened.

    This is like Gyprock being banned and Rod not realising it, or me posting a dodgy graph and Woodbe not realising it.

    Seeing as you missed this historic political moment, and your legal research skills obviously don't include Google, allow me to show you some comments from Windsor at the time of the negotiations:

    Abbott didn’t want the job: Windsor

    11 Oct 2010.

    Tony Windsor has revealed for the first time why Tony Abbott is not prime minister today.

    Remarkably it was because in the crucial early days of negotiations over the formation of a minority government Abbott didn’t want the job.

    Windsor says the Liberal leader lost him because the formation of government seemed to come a clear second to Abbott’s rush to get back to the polls and re-run the August 21 election.

    Tony Windsor remains convinced that at the outset of their talks that’s exactly what Abbott wanted – to the point where he was actually disinterested in the talks.

    Abbott didn
    Windsor's not lying like JuLIAR, he's just engaged in the regular political spin of highlighting convenient points for political impact (a technique I quite like using ). Surely you have been trained to recognise this.

    I find it hard to believe you effectively depose people or argue points of law effectively with the credulous attitude you have displayed thus far.

    This topic and the rules of this thread should be a cakewalk for a man of your talents and training. No legislation, no discovery, no judges (ok, the moderators do lay down the law occasionally ).

    No wonder I am a sceptic and don't trust people claiming to be "experts".

  30. #5130
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Well said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Sharpen up your arguments.
    Very succinct and very accurate!

    I do tend to ramble.

  31. #5131
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default How true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes and what we have is a lying, coniving PM that will be dusted at the next election
    Yeh, apologies for the slow posts, but was trying to watch Q&A at the same time.

    Gotta love Turnbull, the right man for that show.

    But based on the crowd reaction and all feedback, JuLIAR is on the road out.

    Tony Jones even referred to the use of the name JuLIAR being used throughout the country after only a few days. (That's the internet for you SBD, Ruddy warned you it was the "toolbox of the 21st Century". It's certainly full of tools. ).

    The Greens won't care who is in power as long as their base grows. Bob Brown may even figure out that his party will grow much faster with an Abbott led Liberal government in power, by playing against Abbott's direct action plan.

    Maybe this is his plan by having Milne regularly spruiking petrol being in the scheme, to destabilise JuLIAR in the lower house.

    And how awesome was it when Piers Ackerman shut down that moronic girl. She was complaining how racist and discriminatory we Australians are, usually aimed at the old white men in the "establishment". Then Piers pointed out she was a very young female Muslim who Australia had selected to represent us at the UN for their youth committee.

    The look of realisation on her face when it dawned on her she was the evidence against her own argument was hilarious!

  32. #5132
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What the?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    In the meantime it looks like Julia has got things under control.


    I'd hate to see the country when she goes pear shaped then!

  33. #5133
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Spot on champ!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.
    Well done mate, nail this Catch 22 they cannot sell. They say it has to hurt to have an effect, then say we will make sure it doesn't hurt to keep votes. Trapped!

  34. #5134
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Very succinct and very accurate!

    I do tend to ramble.
    Hey that was directed at our friend Mr James. Your rambling at least has some reasoning.

    Keep rambling man.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  35. #5135
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    So.. if its that easy to get used to it will be a great waste of time then.
    Yes. Certainly in the first few years.

    But down the track at bit.....the economists and day traders all on the hunt for new ways to make money will demand that this new financial instrument (the Australian Carbon Price) is floated on the international market in order to gain a greater level of access to the international trade in carbon 'credits' (which will also come simply because the Almighty God Of Endless Economic Growth must be kowtowed to).

    The carbon economy is a new type of currency.....it'll join national currencies, gold, oil and other commodities on international money train. And like most mineral commodities...carbon 'credits' (if the process works correctly) should become increasingly scarce as carbon emissions from fossil fuels fall. Unlike most commodities....this process of increasing scarcity should happen in an orderly, stable & forseeable fashion and markets like stability.

    The increasing scarcity will happen until a point where the 80:20 rule applies and there is nothing economic to be gained from mitigating the last 20% of fossil fuel carbon emissions because the cost of doing so will account for 80% of the total budget to date.

    This point will prove to be an interesting place.....by this time, fossil fuel carbon emmisions should be so expensive that they are spent on the really important things that only fossil fuels can provide....which is not fuel (or even heat) but hydrocarbons for industry.

    But since I expect to have naturally expired (one way or the other) by then......so it won't cost me much either.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  36. #5136
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Yes. Certainly in the first few years.

    But down the track at bit.....the economists and day traders all on the hunt for new ways to make money will demand that this new financial instrument (the Australian Carbon Price) is floated on the international market in order to gain a greater level of access to the international trade in carbon 'credits' (which will also come simply because the Almighty God Of Endless Economic Growth must be kowtowed to).

    The carbon economy is a new type of currency.....it'll join national currencies, gold, oil and other commodities on international money train. And like most mineral commodities...carbon 'credits' (if the process works correctly) should become increasingly scarce as carbon emissions from fossil fuels fall. Unlike most commodities....this process of increasing scarcity should happen in an orderly, stable & forseeable fashion and markets like stability.

    The increasing scarcity will happen until a point where the 80:20 rule applies and there is nothing economic to be gained from mitigating the last 20% of fossil fuel carbon emissions because the cost of doing so will account for 80% of the total budget to date.

    This point will prove to be an interesting place.....by this time, fossil fuel carbon emmisions should be so expensive that they are spent on the really important things that only fossil fuels can provide....which is not fuel (or even heat) but hydrocarbons for industry.

    But since I expect to have naturally expired (one way or the other) by then......so it won't cost me much either.
    Wow what you have described is the precursor for the biggest finacial meltdown in history.

    The ignorance on this is breathtaking.

    So called intelligent people support this. Go figure!!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  37. #5137
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The Parliament always has the numbers to pass a proposed bill, it is designed that way.
    The above is a fine example of your intelligence.

    My dog knows the answer.

    Do me a favour - before you make yourself look so incredibly, well silly (and that's being generous), don't pretend that your opinion is the only one that counts.

    There are some good ABC kids publications on the process of a Bill through Parliament if you would like to begin there.

  38. #5138
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Yeh, apologies for the slow posts, but was trying to watch Q&A at the same time.

    Gotta love Turnbull, the right man for that show.
    He should be leading this country but the Libs are too dumb.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    And how awesome was it when Piers Ackerman shut down that moronic girl. She was complaining how racist and discriminatory we Australians are, usually aimed at the old white men in the "establishment". Then Piers pointed out she was a very young female Muslim who Australia had selected to represent us at the UN for their youth committee.

    The look of realisation on her face when it dawned on her she was the evidence against her own argument was hilarious!
    WTF? Mate, you need to get a perspective. That's an appalling interpretation of what happened.

    Your comprehension is ....ppffffttt!! Seriously?

    I can't believe you wrote that.

  39. #5139
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Thesis is a pissa.

    He acknowledges that a Carbon Tax and market based mechanisms are the way to go! Ha??

    Shadow environment policy (written by One Nation Party!!) is the farce. They don't even support each other. Don't know whether they are sheep or soldiers. They are the liars and the sham.

  40. #5140
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Thesis is a pissa.

    He acknowledges that a Carbon Tax and market based mechanisms are the way to go! Ha??

    Shadow environment policy (written by One Nation Party!!) is the farce. They don't even support each other. Don't know whether they are sheep or soldiers. They are the liars and the sham.
    James like I said before you really need to sharpen up on you arguments.

    We acknowledge people, even withing the liberal party have their own personal views on AGW, that is the nature of the beast. The difference is that they are able to voice those opinions. Unlike those in the Labour party who personally oppose a carbon tax that are unable to express those views.

    Try again you might find a gotcha yet! But I doubt it.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  41. #5141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default

    It's taken me a few hours to catch up on the ten or so pages I have missed, just dealing with a family issue and couldn't use the computer in the hospital. Any way Freud, Rod, Marc and others well done for keeping the fanatical AGW zealots honest. Congratulations Marc on your post a few pages back, extremely informative but completely lost on the socialists, tree huggers and grey cardigan wearers.
    I come to that old adage " you can lie to some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time". JuLIER is toast. And Brown will become just that, a stain of that colour on the political landscape.

    James I'm with Freud in questioning your stated scholastic achievements. If you studied ethics then I would respectfully suggest you have forgotten everything you learnt. A person of your stated academic achievements should be setting an example for the rest of us to follow and not act like an under achieving trade union wanna be pseudo intellectual. Also some free unsolicited advise,read the entire thread lest you continue to be a boor.

  42. #5142
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark53 View Post
    If you studied ethics then I would respectfully suggest you have forgotten everything you learnt. A person of your stated academic achievements should be setting an example for the rest of us to follow and not act like an under achieving trade union wanna be pseudo intellectual. Also some free unsolicited advise,read the entire thread lest you continue to be a boor.
    Lets be honest, this is a forum.

    The principles enunciated in Legal Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.

    Like Sigmund, go bury your head in a book and not the sand before you pontificate.

  43. #5143

    Behind the Scenes is Where it all Happens

    The Administration Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Default

    Play the ball, not the man.
    play-ball.jpg

  44. #5144
    Apprentice (new member)
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Thornbury
    Posts
    2

    Cool Climate Science

    Just joined this group to discuss renovation - but noticed this thread and couldn't let it go by.

    There is a good discussion paper produced by the Australian Academy of Science - leading scientists in all the fields relevent to climate change have put put it together.
    Here is the link http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
    No real argument in the scientific community about the urgent need to reduce carbon pollution.

    Cheers

  45. #5145
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Welcome to the fray.

    Spoodle' maybe you can answer what other here have not been able to. That is, what scientific evidence is there that make you so sure AGW is real. We already acknowledge that climate changes and Co2 is a "greenhouse" gas. But maybe you can tell us how much Australia will reduce the temperature by reducing emission.

    Or perhaps you can explain how using 'every cent" raised by the carbon tax to offset the cost of the carbon tax will reduce our emissions.

    You may also tell us what temperature is perfect for us and should we expect this to be stable when emissions are reduced.

    That will help us skeptics understand the need for a carbon tax.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  46. #5146
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Oh one other thing, Spoodle' we are told the current temperatures are unprecidendted. You might point to scientific evidence that this is so.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  47. #5147
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoodlehouse View Post
    Just joined this group to discuss renovation - but noticed this thread and couldn't let it go by.

    There is a good discussion paper produced by the Australian Academy of Science - leading scientists in all the fields relevent to climate change have put put it together.
    Here is the link http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
    No real argument in the scientific community about the urgent need to reduce carbon pollution.

    Cheers
    Welcome Spoodlehouse,

    Great to see someone speak up for the science. That's a pretty comprehensive paper you have linked there.

    I agree with you that there is no real argument in the scientific community about this, there's plenty here in the backwaters of politically inspired doubt and misinformation at the renovate forums though. Enjoy!

    woodbe.

  48. #5148
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Welcome Spoodlehouse,

    Great to see someone speak up for the science. That's a pretty comprehensive paper you have linked there.

    I agree with you that there is no real argument in the scientific community about this, there's plenty here in the backwaters of politically inspired doubt and misinformation at the renovate forums though. Enjoy!

    woodbe.

  49. #5149
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Oh one other thing, Spoodle' we are told the current temperatures are unprecidendted. You might point to scientific evidence that this is so.
    Read the link. You might get some answers there.

    Actually, there is the possibility of a literacy problem that I have not, until now, considered. This type of information has been in print for decades now. Further, if you don't comprehend by now, you just never will.

  50. #5150
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Don't encourage me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Hey that was directed at our friend Mr James. Your rambling at least has some reasoning.

    Keep rambling man.
    No worries mate, I knew the intended target.

    But remember, you encouraged any future ramblings, so if Mr Watson goes off, I'm gonna say I was just following orders.

Page 103 of 377 FirstFirst ... 3 53 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 153 203 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •