Emission Trading and climate change

Page 106 of 377 FirstFirst ... 6 56 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 156 206 ... LastLast
Results 5,251 to 5,300 of 18819
  1. #5251
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More lies, lies, lies!

    It's getting hard to keep up:

    ASTONISHINGLY, the PM, the Cabinet and members of the Canberra Press Gallery don't know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.

    There are two great lies told about the need to "put a price on carbon". Lies which I can't recall a single member of the gallery ever confronting the liars with -- far less the prime liar herself.

    The first is that "climate change policies" are aimed at "carbon pollution". No they are not; they are aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

    To suggest that it is about stopping dirty bits of grit -- the very real carbon pollution of yesterday's coal-burning home fires which gave London its sooty smog and killed thousands every year.

    The great sick irony is that to the extent we do cut our emissions of CO2, it will merely relocate those emissions in developing countries where they will be accompanied by bits of grit. Most notably and significantly: China.

    The second great lie is that so-called "de-carbonising our economy" as a consequence of "putting a price on carbon" is the 21st century equivalent of the tariff reforms of the 1980s.

    In fact it is the exact opposite: it is the equivalent of imposing tariffs on the Australian economy. This is true whether or not the rest of the world follows. It's just that much worse if we do it solo.

    This lie has been peddled not just by the government but also by Treasury. Be afraid, be really afraid that we have a Treasury which is that incompetent.

    Carbon not the same thing as CO2 | Herald Sun

  2. #5252
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I warned Combet!

    Combet will now learn how quickly and easily you can lose credibility by supporting this farce.

    He is now being twisted into knots and joining JuLIAR's lying brigade:

    How a single poll changes the climate…

    Climate Change Minister Greg Combet discovers that even warmist Fran Kelly of ABC Radio National will no longer buy the spin or overlook the deceit in selling a useless tax that is actually designed to hurt - not that Combet wants to admit that:

    FRAN KELLY:
    Tony Abbott is arguing, as we’ve said, the case against this and in a speech last night he was saying, pointing out the carbon tax in his words would transform Australia’s way of life by making it harder for Australians to drive or turn on the air condition.

    GREG COMBET:
    See? What garbage.

    FRAN KELLY:
    It’s true though, isn’t it?

    GREG COMBET:
    But it’s garbage, honestly. I mean, this guy, he really is nothing but a mobile scare campaign.

    Garbage? Here’s Combet himself not two weeks ago:
    Asked to name the top five things people could do to beat the carbon tax, Mr Combet said it was best to reduce energy consumption.

    “And the main way to do that is by saving energy, to turn things off at the wall,” he said.

    “Maybe think about how often you use the airconditioner. Using a cheaper-to-run hot water system. Changing the light bulbs. Have you got insulation?...”
    Full sordid story here:

    Combet won’t now admit to the “transformation” Gillard once boasted | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    Rod nailed it with the Catch 22. If it don't hurt voters, it don't work in theory. If it does hurt voters, it does hurt JuLIAR.

    She's gone.

    Anybody notice how Bill Shorten has been avoiding this farce.

    Bill who you say?

    I wonder why???

  3. #5253
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    As usual, the silent majority have to work and pay taxes so will likely be too busy to go to the rally. But if you can spare a few hours:

    CANBERRA - the big one!
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 12:00pm
    Location: Parliament House
    Register/more info: Click here for the facebook group or go to http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/

    MELBOURNE
    Date: 12 March
    Time: 9:30am for 10:00am start
    Location: Julia Gillard's Electorate Office, 6 Synnot Street Werribee, Vic
    Email: stopcarbontax@gmail.com
    Register/more info: Click here

    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne
    Register/more info: Click here

    SYDNEY
    Date: 2 April
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: NSW Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney
    Register/more info: Click here

    BRISBANE
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Qld Parliament, Cnr George and Alice Streets
    Register/more info: Click here

    ADELAIDE
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Parliament House
    Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com


    PERTH
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Parliament House, Harvest Terace, Perth
    Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au
    Register on Facebook: Click here


    Come on pensioners, do yourselves a favour.


    I'm gonna put in a few hours for the Perth one. Cos freedom isn't free, it costs folks like you and me, and if you don't put in your buck o' five, who will?


    But play nice, don't go waving your walking frames around and knocking out some nice old lady's dentures.

    Count on me being at the Melbourne Rally.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  4. #5254
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    This whole fiasco and fallout in the polls just reminds me of a saying. "I just love the smell of napalm in the morning"

    Gott love this wedge the stupid liar has put herself in.

    If the final make up of this tax returns all the money back to those it is ment to change the habbit of, it will be ridiculed as ineffective and be pillared by those who want action on AGW and by those who dont.

    if it does hurt us as it is ment to it will be pillard by those it hurts.

    No win situation for this one term idiot who is too clever by half and brought herself undone. What an idiot.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  5. #5255
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Far too funny stuff from today's Crikey.....the other one may well be a liar but at least she's a) consistent and b) knows she does it.

    Saddest thing of all? Abbotillard is all we have to choose from. <sigh>

    As the Gillard government's plan for a carbon prices sends Coalition stocks soaring, attention is increasingly focusing on what opposition leader Tony Abbott believes in about climate change and how to deal with it. Today in Crikey, Tony Abbott debates one of his most formidable opponents on the issue -- Tony Abbott.

    Tony Abbott: Climate change is a relatively new political issue, but it's been happening since the earth's beginning. The extinction of the dinosaurs is thought to have been associated with climate change.

    Tony Abbott: I’ve always thought that climate change was real because I’ve always known about the ice age and other things which indicate that over time climate does change.

    Tony Abbott: I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have significantly increased since the spread of industrialisation, but it seems that noticeable warming has only taken place between the 1970s and 1990s.

    Tony Abbott: We have a clear policy on climate change. Climate change is real.

    Tony Abbott: I mean in the end this whole thing is a question of fact, not faith, or it should be a question of fact not faith and we can discover whether the planet is warming or not by measurement. And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Now admittedly we are still pretty warm by recent historical standards but there doesn’t appear to have been any appreciable warming since the late 1990s.

    Tony Abbott: It’s quite likely that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has had some effect on climate, but debate rages among scientists over its extent and relative impact given all the other factors at work.

    Tony Abbott: We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change. If they are, we don’t know whether they are exacerbating or counteracting what might otherwise be happening to global climate. Even if they are adding to climatic extremes, humanity may be able to cope with only modest adjustments.


    Tony Abbott: What we can say, though, is that we should try to make as little difference as possible to the natural world. As well, prudent people take reasonable precautions against foreseeable contingencies. It’s the insurance principle.

    Tony Abbott: OK, so the climate has changed over the eons and we know from history, at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus of Nazareth, the climate was considerably warmer than it is now. And then during what they called the Dark Ages it was colder. Then there was the medieval warm period. Climate change happens all the time and it is not man that drives those climate changes back in history. It is an open question how much the climate changes today and what role man plays.

    Tony Abbott: I am confident, based on the science we have, that mankind does make a difference to climate, almost certainly the impact of humans on the planet extends to climate.

    Tony Abbott: The argument is absolute crap.

    Tony Abbott. We believe climate change is real, yes, we believe humans make a contribution towards climate change.

    Tony Abbott: There may even have been a slight decrease in global temperatures (the measurement data differs on this point) over the past decade despite continued large increases in emissions associated with the rapid economic growth of China and India.

    Tony Abbott: I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that's I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.

    Tony Abbott: I think there are all sorts of ways of paying for this that don't involve a great big new tax that we will live with forever.

    Tony Abbott: There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.

    Tony Abbott: What we need is environmental direct action. We need action which is actually going to make a difference. What we don’t need is a whopping great new tax masquerading as a green measure.

    Tony Abbott: The Howard government proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost… On the other hand, artificially created markets could be especially open to manipulation… For this reason, many now think that a carbon charge scheme directed at the least environmentally efficient producers would be simpler and fairer than an emissions trading scheme.

    Tony Abbott: We have a policy to reduce emissions, not just to make them more expensive.

    Tony Abbott: In the absence of wind that never stops blowing, sun that never stops shining and tides that never stop turning; in the absence of hydrogen cars; and in the absence of nuclear power stations to supply most base-load electricity, big reductions in emissions are impossible without a big increase in people's cost of living or a significant change in their lifestyles.

    Tony Abbott: The important thing is what will it do to people’s cost of living and if it drives up your cost of living it is a tax. It’s effectively an increase in the rate of GST -- that’s what it is.

    Tony Abbott: If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.

    *Taken from Tony Abbott's biography Battlelines and speeches, media transcripts and articles since mid-2009. Additional research by Crikey intern Nikki Bricknell.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  6. #5256
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Far too funny stuff from today's Crikey.....the other one may well be a liar but at least she's a) consistent and b) knows she does it.

    Saddest thing of all? Abbotillard is all we have to choose from. <sigh>
    I dont have a problem with anything he is saying here.

    Smart I think to show he is dubious about the science yet is still prepared to act in a form that is not going to hurt us nor is will it permanently change our economics. It can be stopped when the science has been proven a dud.

    Very smart IMO.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  7. #5257
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    This could be a game changer for Mann

    Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request]
    Link To Serve Mann | Watts Up With That?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  8. #5258
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default JuLIAR's the punch line.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I dont have a problem with anything he is saying here.

    Smart I think to show he is dubious about the science yet is still prepared to act in a form that is not going to hurt us nor is will it permanently change our economics. It can be stopped when the science has been proven a dud.

    Very smart IMO.
    Too right.

    They scrounge a lot of quotes out of context over two years to try and find a sliver of inconsistency, and still can't!

    They do this to distract from JuLIAR's massive blatant LIES!

    They are a joke.

  9. #5259
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Gitmo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    This could be a game changer for Mann


    Link To Serve Mann | Watts Up With That?

    Lucky O'Bummer hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay!

    He could be playing "Hide the Salami" soon instead of "Hide the decline".

  10. #5260
    Apprentice (new member)
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    cessnock
    Posts
    2

    Default American visit

    After watching JuLiar crying over man walking on the moon & no-one died, how many tears were shed over the pink batt fiasco here in Australia by JuLiar & her cronies. The flowers on the graves havent started wilting, yet here we have tears.

    JuLiar is sinking in a bucket of her own swill & hopefully taking a few of the human oil slicks with her.

  11. #5261
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paintstripper View Post
    After watching JuLiar crying over man walking on the moon & no-one died, how many tears were shed over the pink batt fiasco here in Australia by JuLiar & her cronies. The flowers on the graves havent started wilting, yet here we have tears.

    JuLiar is sinking in a bucket of her own swill & hopefully taking a few of the human oil slicks with her.
    Well the knives are out and getting sharpened as we speak.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  12. #5262
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I'm starting to like this lady!

    The Government has missed the point. Instead of slugging us for fossil fuels, it should provide green energy that is cheap to use.

    But it is not the missing detail that is the problem; it is the tax itself, as Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out. On Tuesday night, Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, outlined the flaws with the Government's approach.

    His data comes from a climate-change summit of the world's top economists -- including three Nobel laureates -- he organised under the banner of the Copenhagen Consensus in 2009. They examined 15 of the most credible solutions to climate change, from climate engineering solutions, such as whitening clouds, to planting trees and cutting methane. They ranked them by cost effectiveness and the amount of climate damage they would avoid.

    Carbon dioxide taxes ranked rock bottom.

    Lomborg also describes the common climate alarmist mantra that the "cost of inaction is more than the cost of action" as a "fraud", because the action proposed by a carbon tax does virtually nothing to prevent future climate damage.


    Windsor, whose conservative electorate is seething with anger over his role in bringing Labor to power and his apparent complicity in the carbon tax announcement, may have had his spine stiffened by Coalition rats.

    But he still has been backpedalling at a million miles an hour since Labor recorded its lowest ever primary support in Newspoll, showing what a blunder the carbon tax is.

    Meanwhile, Windsor, who holds one of the deciding votes on the tax, is looking increasingly rattled, hanging up on interviewers left, right and centre, including his own local radio station, 2NZ in Inverell, where calls ran 111 to three against a carbon tax in one phone poll.

    Any legitimate complaint is labelled a "scare campaign", intemperate phone calls become "death threats" and criticism by the Opposition is the equivalent of the US Tea Party. The pattern here is partisan abuse, hyperbole and misrepresentation, worthy of a used-car salesman.

    Windsor seems to be in denial about the fact that the electorate he represents is conservative. It's about time he listened to the people whose votes took him to Canberra. If he were properly representing New England he wouldn't need to be told that Gillard's misbegotten carbon tax is anathema to most of his electorate.

    It doesn't matter how many details are added to it or how slickly it is sold. It is a dog.

    Carbon tax looks like disaster | Herald Sun
    Woof.

  13. #5263
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Sheez I've opened a can of worms here LOL So you still don't believe in climate change?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  14. #5264
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Woof.
    Yes she makes sense.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  15. #5265
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Liars!

    Yes, still more lies. Can't stop once you start.

    Shorten is laughing as Combet's credibility is shredded, leaving him the only one able to take over from JuLIAR after she falls.
    A SENIOR Gillard government minister has been accused of deception after appearing to claim Labor would return the entire proceeds of its carbon tax to families.

    "The cost to the families will be compensated," Mr Crean told ABC radio this morning.
    "We have made that clear. We will ensure that the compensation is totally adequate.
    "We will return all of the monies raised to people through the tax mechanism."


    Climate Change Minister Greg Combet is another who has sent mixed messages on where the carbon tax proceeds will be directed.


    He told the ABC on March 7: "Every dollar that is raised by the payment of a carbon price by the companies that are emitting large amounts of pollution will be used towards supporting households, with a particular emphasis on pensioners and low-income households."


    Mr Combet was also quoted in The Daily Telegraph on March 1 saying: "The government has committed to use every dollar raised by a carbon price paid by big polluting businesses to help people with any price impacts."


    Labor minister accused of deception over compensation for carbon tax | The Australian
    No energy industry compensation means blackouts around Australia.

    No manufacturing industry compensation means massive job losses and increased emissions via CO2 leakage.

    No renewable R&D money means no new technology.

    Great plan, huh?

    JuLIAR has got them all lying now.

  16. #5266
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Hilarious.

    It's getting so bad that even the Labor Party no longer likes the Labor Party!
    Currently there is a dispute within the Government over who decided to bring forward the climate change debate while a committee was still discussing such a key issues as compensation for price rises and the sectors to be subjected to emission penalties.

    Some ministers are blaming Ms Gillard and others Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who has the job of selling the carbon pricing plan without critical elements being available to him.

    One minister blames both, saying they are "joined at the hip".

    One minister has pointed to the joint press conference in which Ms Gillard was flanked by two independents, two Greens and Mr Combet.

    "Suddenly it became a carbon tax issue and people were asking poor old (Treasurer) Wayne Swan why he wasn't at the press conference," said the source.

    In a related issue, there is considerable anger over the public comments from Greens deputy leader Christine Milne who has embarrassed the Government by insisting petrol would be subjected to a carbon price before a formal decision has been made.

    Senator Milne also has insisted her party has part of the Government. The remarks would have led to a sacking had any Labor minister made them.

    There are fears that her hardline approach might be intensified when the new Greens senators take up their seats in July.
    It's pretty funny that when you mix red and green you get Brown!




  17. #5267
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What a bunch of light weights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Sheez I've opened a can of worms here LOL So you still don't believe in climate change?
    Mate, you'll have that lot whining like school girls in no time.

    I almost fell off my chair laughing when one of them asked for "peer-reviewed science" to prove the world has stopped warming.

    Ask them to pop over here for a full read of the thread. It'll drive them to tears.

  18. #5268
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    It's getting so bad that even the Labor Party no longer likes the Labor Party!


    It's pretty funny that when you mix red and green you get Brown!




    Very clever
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  19. #5269
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Experts!

    This is the worlds leading expert on the EU that is the only group to have implemented this farce. Their emissions have increased 44% through their increased imports from developing nations.

    We used to call this "sweeping it under the carpet" before we all starting treating experts opinions as facts.

    Remember now, worlds leading expert, talking to a "shock-jock".

    Watch her get owned:

    The two basic questions with any purchase. How much does it cost? Will it do the job?
    Jill Duggan is from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action. She is the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading. She is in Australia to tell us how good Europe’s emission trading system is and why we should do something similar.
    No one, therefore, should better know the answers to the two most basic questions about this huge scheme. The cost? The effect?.
    So on MTR yesterday, I asked them. Duggan’s utter inability to answer is a scandal - an indictment of global warming politics today.= (listen here):

    AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?

    JD: Yes.
    AB: Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?
    JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
    AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - who’s not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?
    JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments - such as the UK government and the German government - would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.
    AB: Right. Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.
    JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.
    AB: That’s right. You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me. For that investment. Or for whatever the investment is. What’s your estimation of how much - because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures - what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?
    JD: Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C - so that’s increases - you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.
    AB: Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion - or whatever you think the figure is - what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature? Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary. What do you think the temperature reduction will be?
    JD: Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions. It’s 500 or 550 million people. On its own it cannot do that. That is absolutely clear.
    AB: Have you got a figure in your mind? You don’t know the cost. Do you know the result?
    JD: I don’t have a cost figure in my mind. Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.
    AB: So if I put a figure to you - I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome - would you quarrel with this assessment: that by 2100 - if you go your way and if you’re successful - the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C? Would you agree with that?
    JD: Sorry, can you just pass that by me again? You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?
    AB: If just Europe alone - for this massive investment - will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C. Would you quarrel with that?
    JD: Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise. Would it?
    AB: Ah, no, actually it is, Jill. You see this is what I’m curious about; that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy. You don’t know what it costs. And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.
    JD: Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.
    AB: Well what’s your modelling? That’s the one that everyone’s quoting. What’s your modelling?
    JD: Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits. In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies. In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.
    Don’t know the cost, don’t know if it works | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Read the full transcript at the link.

    And this woman is lecturing us on a farce she doesn't even understand.

  20. #5270
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Why lie?

    Why would you keep making up lies to justify something that is supposed to be so good?

    How much can you trust a warmist? Here’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the ABC’s 7.30 this week, selling her great new tax on carbon dioxide:

    CHRIS UHLMANN: But if the United States doesn’t put a price on carbon, why should Australia?
    JULIA GILLARD: Well we have to look at our own national interest and our own national circumstances. The reality is we are bigger emitters of carbon pollution per head of population than the United States of America.

    Climate Change Minister has made the same claim:

    False. Check the latest figures from the United Nations. Australia is out-ranked on per-capita emissions not only by the United States, but Aruba, Bahrain, Brunei, Falkland Islands, Kuwait, Netherlands Antilles, Qatar, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Arab Emirates.
    Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has confirmation:
    According to a Reuters report of November 14, 2010, which used data from the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, the top per capita emitters of fossil fuel carbon dioxide (in tonnes) in 2007 were: Qatar 51.3, Kuwait 34.0, United Arab Emirates 30.9, Bahrain 29.5, Trinidad and Tobago 27.7, Luxembourg 24.2, Brunei 19.5, United States 19.0, Australia 17.7 and Saudi Arabia 16.9.
    In the context of a global picture, the level of emissions per capita is less important than total emissions.
    Again Reuters has reported, based on data from the German renewable energy institute IWR, that the top national emitters of carbon dioxide (in millions of tonnes) in 2009 were: China 7426.4; US 5951.0; Russia 1534.4; India 1529.1; Japan 1225.2; Germany 796.6; South Korea 664.2; Canada 605.9; Saudi Arabia 544.4; Iran 544.4.
    On this list, Australia comes in 16th, with 374 million tonnes - or 1.28 per cent of global emissions.
    Yet thoughtless Labor MPs repeat the easily disproved deceit as they sell their pointless, damaging tax. Take Kirsten Livermore, the Member for Capricornia:

    With the highest emission per capita in the world, higher even than the United States, Australia’s household and businesses are at risk of being left behind.
    Gavin Atkins tracks down the source of Gillard’s fake claim:

    It came from reports of a few years back from a British firm called Maplecroft. However this report is about energy production only and excludes many of the things the IPCC uses to complete its figures such as transport, agriculture and land use. When you add these things, Americans emit more CO2 than Australians per capita and of course, vastly more over all.
    So just like her predecessor’s repeated lie that Australia was the hottest and driest continent, and Gillard’s pre-election commitment that there would be no carbon tax, her rationale for action on climate change is a lie.
    So if the argument for a tax is so good, why have Rudd and Gillard found it necessary to fabricate so much information?
    Indeed.
    And also a lie, incidentally, is Gillard and Combet’s use of the phrase “carbon pollution”. They are talking, in fact, about carbon dioxide - and to call this “pollution” makes as much sense as calling water “pollution” even if you have more of it in a flood than you want.

    Gillard tells yet another porkie | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Lies, lies, lies?

    Their contempt for ordinary Australians is phenomenal?

  21. #5271
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Attention science buffs!

    If you are sick of all the lies, here's a scientist presenting some facts as well as his opinion on those facts:

    Greens leader Bob Brown claimed the Brisbane floods were caused by coal-miners:
    It’s the single biggest cause, burning coal, for climate change and it must take its major share of responsibility for the weather events we are seeing unfolding now.
    That one statement alone - nonsensically false, alarmist and opportunist - should have reduced him permanently to a figure of fun in a healthy democracy.
    And now Julia Gillard claims we need nothing less than a great tax on carbon emissions, to totally transform our economy, if we are to help save the planet from apocalyptic man-made warming.
    Why do journalists credit these two shameless alarmists and their fraudulent, ruinous schemes to “fix” a problem that exists nowhere but in discredited computer models?
    On Monday this week, one of the world’s top climate scientists exposed both Brown and Gillard for the dangerous shysters they are
    Here’s some of that that damning testimony of John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former Lead Author of IPCC assessments.
    The floods were nothing unusual, and part of natural variability
    The tragic flooding in the second half of 2010 in NE Australia was examined in two ways, (1) in terms of financial costs and (2) in terms of climate history.
    First, when one normalizes the flood costs year by year, meaning if one could imagine that the infrastructure now in place was unchanging during the entire study period, the analysis shows there are no long-term trends in damages. In an update of Crompton and McAneney (2008) of normalized disaster losses in Australia which includes an estimate for 2010, they show absolutely no trend since 1966.
    Secondly, regarding the recent Australian flooding as a physical event in the context climate history (with the estimated 2010 maximum river height added to the chart below) one sees a relative lull in flooding events after 1900. Only four events reached the moderate category in the past 110 years, while 14 such events were recorded in the 60 years before 1900. Indeed, the recent flood magnitude had been exceeded six times in the last 170 years, twice by almost double the level of flooding as observed in 2010. Such history charts indicate that severe flooding is an extreme event that has occurred from natural, unforced variability.
    The world isn’t warming anything like as fast as the global warmists’ models warned it would
    As noted earlier, my main research projects deal with building climate datasets from scratch to document what the climate has done and to test assertions and hypotheses about climate change....
    I have repeated that study for this testimony with data which now cover 32 years as shown above (1979-2010.) In an interesting result, the new underlying trend remains a modest +0.09 C/decade for the global tropospheric temperature, which is still only one
    third of the average rate the climate models project for the current era
    (+0.26°C/decade.)

    There is no evidence of acceleration in this trend. This evidence strongly suggests that climate model simulations on average are simply too sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases and thus overstate the warming of the climate system ...
    Trying to “stop” global warming with things like a carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading is a waste of money

    The evidence above suggests that climate models overestimate the response of temperature to greenhouse gas increases. Even so, using these climate model simulations we calculate that the impact of legislative actions being considered on the global temperature is essentially imperceptible. These actions will not result in a measurable climate effect that can be attributable or predictable with any level of confidence, especially at the regional level… Thus, if the country deems it necessary to de-carbonize civilization’s main energy sources, sound and indeed compelling reasons beyond human-induced climate change need to be offered.
    Why on earth are we persisting in this folly?

    Top climate scientist warns: the warming is exaggerated and we can’t stop it anyway | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    It's amazing how many scientists keep saying they are not part of this "consensus" that politicians and greenies keep including them in.

  22. #5272
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The joke gets worse.

    And the business lobby is growing restless:
    BIG business will press Julia Gillard to delay the start of her carbon tax planned for July 1 next year and demand she top the compensation offered to industry by Kevin Rudd in his 2009 climate change plan.
    The move is flagged in a submission to the government’s key climate change committee from a body representing more than 20 leading Australian companies....
    There was evidence yesterday that the furious political debate between the Prime Minister and Tony Abbott on the carbon tax was also starting to cause concern among consumers, with retailer Gerry Harvey linking the dispute to a fall in household confidence.
    But Gillard’s authority and credibility as now so bankrupt that she cannot afford any delay. Moreover, a delay would only strengthen arguments that she wait a little longer still and first get a mandate for her tax at the next election, as John Howard did when he changed his mind on the GST.



    Any change now on the timing of the tax or on implementing it at all must also come with a change of Labor leader. This is now the terrible dilemma for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, whose own ambitions may be scuppered by having his leg tied to Gillard’s disastrous tax, which is his job to sell. Combet is fast running out of time to distance himself from this debacle.

    Labor Right knows Gillard is as bad as conservatives say | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    It is likely already too late for Combet.

  23. #5273
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Why Combet's in trouble?

    He now uses John Howard in his defence to his first question:

    I had occasion today to reflect on this and how John Howard approached, for example, developing the GST and I pulled out the announcement.
    He conveniently fails to mention John Howard issued this policy prior to an election and asked Australians to vote on it. JuLIAR lied to Australians and tried to sneak a real tax for a fake problem after an election.

    Combet, you are turning into a joke!

    And what is going to be important as this debate goes on is that we get onto the underlying reasons for why it is important for us to take action on climate change, why we need a carbon price in the economy, what a carbon price will do. And what it will do, will cut pollution in our economy - we need to do that - and it will also drive investment in clean energy sources.
    Greg, Carbon Dioxide is what you are breathing out. Pollution is a real problem and your department has a list of it.

    And if you are giving "every dollar" back to households, where is the investment in clean energy coming from.

    Combet, you are turning into a joke!

    What's important in that industry is to see that there is going to be a carbon price and what will happen with it over time and how an emissions trading scheme for example will operate over time and how it will link internationally.
    You mean link to the EU Greg, no other countries are engaged in this farce, let alone any big emitters.

    Combet, you are turning into a joke!

    But Australia is not going it alone here. We're not out on our own. We're not leading the world, but we shouldn't be left behind. A report released some months ago by Vivid Economics, a UK-based firm, had a look at the effective carbon prices in a number of countries, and I mentioned $29 in the UK. It was actually $14 a tonne in China and about $5 a tonne effectively across the US. And guess where Australia was: $1.68 a tonne.

    TONY JONES: OK, I've got to interrupt you there. So you're saying that Australia is doing less to fight climate change than China?

    GREG COMBET: Well China is doing quite a lot. In several weeks' time ...
    Greg Combet is now trying to convince Australians that we are more of a problem than China by using a farcical calculation called "effective Carbon prices"? Greg, seriously, you are making yourself look like an idiot.

    Combet, you are turning into a joke!

    Watch Greg Combet spiral down into a joke here:

    Lateline - 09/03/2011: Combet: An early announcement was appropriate

    Lesson for Greg: Just because you get handed a $#!t sandwich doesn't mean you have to eat it.

  24. #5274
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Liars, the lot of them.

    Surprise, surprise, more lies!

    Professor Garnaut says new science since the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change research has strengthened the position that the Earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.
    He also released specific data on temperature, sea level rises and extreme events from recent years.


    "On the measurable phenomena, it does seem that certainly there's been no evidence of overstatement," he said.


    Garnaut says climate science is stronger - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  25. #5275
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Yep a Carbon dioxide tax is sure the way to go.

    Just ask Penny Wrong.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69KoyIYWSGs"]YouTube - Penny Wong on Carbon Tax[/ame]

    Labor is a mess.
    We all know Julia Gillard lied before the election when she said “there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.
    But did you know Labor’s former Climate Change Minister and current Finance Minister, Penny Wong, previously criticised the carbon tax they now want to impose on Australian families?
    You can see it for yourself in our new video.
    In Senator Wong’s own words: “I have been very upfront about why I think a carbon tax isn't the most sensible thing for Australia.” (Press Conference, 3 November 2009)
    Here’s more of what Senator Wong has had to say about a carbon tax:
    “A carbon tax is not the silver bullet some people might think.” (Speech, CEDA State of the Nation Conference, 23 June 2010)
    "The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore. There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain." (Speech, Australian Industry Group, 6 February 2008)
    "A carbon tax or regulatory mechanism would take not allow Australia to take advantage of emerging international economic opportunities." (Speech, Australian Business Economists Lunch, 20 February 2009)
    "A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions.” (The Australian, 23 February 2009)
    “A carbon tax … is a recipe for abrupt and unpredictable changes, as the government would need to adjust the tax frequently to try to meet the emissions reduction target." (The Australian, 23 February 2009)
    "A carbon tax is a less efficient way in the Australian Government's view of dealing with this issue.” (Interview, ABC News Radio, 16 April 2010)
    "We know that you can't have any environmental certainty with a carbon tax." (Interview, Sky News, 30 April 2009)
    At a time when Australians are already doing it tough, the Labor-Greens carbon tax will unnecessarily lift electricity, grocery and petrol prices and attack jobs in our key industries.
    The Coalition knows there is a better way. Our direct action plan on climate change is economically responsible and won’t cost Australian jobs.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  26. #5276
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

    The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.



    Christopher Booker 6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009



    If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

    Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

    But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

    Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
    Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

    The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  27. #5277
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
    , one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
    At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
    Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
    Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
    Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
    "Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
    Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.
    The paper – entitled "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change" – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.
    In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.
    "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."
    In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for "bringing these issues to our attention".
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  28. #5278
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    One of my biggest pet hate is the claim that "sea level are rising"

    I lived on a water front farm for 3 decades and currently own a water front property on a tidal river.
    Do you think that after living on the water edge and boating for all my natural life I would have perhaps noticed that in the last 60 years there has been a rise in the water level?
    I have seen brass plates bolted to steel post dated 1854 and later, with water levels that are exactly the same as they are today.
    I have built jetty and steps from the jetty to the water in hardwood. Do you think that steps are a good way to see the water level?
    Hi tide is up to the second step, low tide is down to the 8 step. Year in year out.

    Today the Telegraph resucitated the scare mongering claim of sea level rising.

    When is this crap going to stop?
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  29. #5279
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Are you off to Canberra Marc? I am for sure.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #5280
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It will be a slow death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    When is this crap going to stop?
    As more and more people begin to understand what a giant con-job this is, it will slowly fade into history as one of those bizarre phenomenon that future generations look back ad think "What a bunch of wacko's".

    Unfortunately due to the zealots involved, it will not go quickly.

    They will continue to scream their bizarre claims with little reason and no scientific basis whatsoever.

  31. #5281
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Screaming bizarre claims.

    These people truly are insane!

    Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.
    “Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”
    “Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added.
    Global enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.
    Some examples:
    AliceTMBFan said “2 hours of geography earlier talking about Japan has left me thinking…maybe global warming is way more serious then we thought…”
    Arbiterofwords tweeted “I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”
    MrVikas said “Events like the #Japan #earthquake and #tsunami MUST keep #climate change at forefront of policy thought: Protecting the Rights of Planet Earth | Thought Economics #environment
    Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”
    DanFranklin postulated “Never really believed all this global warming talk, but after the earthquake in NZ and today in Japan. Maybe we’ve ruined the world.”
    And TeamIanHarding tweeted “While Japan witnessed an earthquake we were talking about the problems that global warming leads to in school. Think. Pray. And change.”

    Seriously people, where are the "IPCC climate scientists" outraged at this farce making clear statements to the media that these claims are a joke!

    You won't hear a peep from them because they can't afford dissention in their thinning ranks. They can't afford to alienate any supporters, no matter how wacko they are.
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 12th Mar 2011 at 03:17 PM. Reason: Formatting.

  32. #5282
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's good to see.

    It is truly heartening to see that Australians are smart enough to realise when they are being blatantly lied to, and will not put up with it.

    JuLIAR tried to dud us all to appease the greenies who are keeping her in power.

    Hopefully she will dudded instead of us taxpayers.



    FORMER US vice-president Walter Mondale once said that creating a political image is like mixing cement. When it's wet you can move it around and shape it, he said. But at some point it hardens and then there is almost nothing you can do to reshape it.
    I wonder if Julia Gillard thought about these words when details of the latest Newspoll reached her in Washington as she prepared for her meeting with President Barack Obama.
    Labor's biggest fear is that people have made up their minds about the Prime Minister. She herself must be terrified that the concrete has hardened and her image is set.
    If Gillard's broken election promise on carbon tax has cemented the belief that she cannot be trusted, the Government can probably kiss the next election goodbye, no matter how hard the spin doctors try to reshape that perception.


    Julia Gillard is following Kevin Rudd's spiral | Herald Sun

  33. #5283
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The least worse option is best.

    Faced with a perceived problem—global warming—the Gillard Government had four options open to it:
    1. Do nothing.
    2. Introduce a solution that fixes the problem: reduces global warming (not possible but technically a “solution")
    3. Introduce a solution that doesn’t fix the problem but doesn’t have too many deleterious effects.
    4. Introduce a solution that doesn’t fix the problem and also has many negative economic effects.
    They chose option #4.


    The country’s in the very best of hands | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog



    JuLIAR is telling you option 4 will solve the problem and has no negative effects.

    For the record, Mr Rabbit chose option 3, which is only slightly better IMHO.

    A realist would pick option 1.

    Believers in the AGW hypothesis would pick option 2.

    It is a sad indictment that neither side of politics has the courage of their convictions to fight for either option 1 or 2, not even the greenies!

    The reason for this is that most of the voting public have no idea what is real so could change their minds based on the next pretty graph produced, and they would be politically decimated.

    Such is the failure of the IPCC that so many people believe climate science can alter from day to day.

    Shame, shame, shame!

  34. #5284
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default F---'n loonies!

    DYING is bad for the environment if people are buried in traditional ways.

    So says Labor MLA Carryn Sullivan.

    She called for an investigation into "green" burials that minimise pollution.

    More environmentally friendly methods of burial include using simple wooden or biodegradable cardboard coffins, liquefying a corpse through chemical treatment or even freezing and "shattering" it into a fine powder using vibrations.

    Labor MP Carryn Sullivan calls for environmentally friendly burials and cremations | Courier Mail
    So we can't breathe out carbon dioxide because then we kill the planet.

    So we stop breathing and then we die.

    But we now are not even allowed to decompose because of the greenies.

    Who let these loonies run our country?

    Are we gonna round up all the dead animals decomposing around the whole planet to stop them "polluting" the environment as well?

    Somebody stop the planet, I'm getting off at the next stop.

  35. #5285
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Nut jobs!

    There are new coal fired power plants being opened every week all over the planet, and this is what the greenies focus on:

    Well, Redditch Council has come up with a fantastic, and some might say ghoulish, plan to save energy, and, in the process, money.

    The idea is to heat the new Abbey Stadium sport centre's pool by using the heat that would otherwise go to waste from the next door crematorium.

    And personally, I'm supportive too. As long as the filters are working.

    http://www.biggreensmile.com/green-news/energy-saving/Energy-saving-council-plans-to-use-crematorium-to-heat-local-swimming-pool$11044.aspx
    So much for resting in peace.

    We'll just squeeze a few more joules out of you after you die!

  36. #5286
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    What does a couple of degrees matter?

    According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18°C (1.33 ± 0.32°F) during the 20th century.

    Climate model projections summarised in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4°C (2.0 to 11.5°F) during the 21st century.
    So, what does a degree to two matter? What does it matter if the forecast top temperature is 32°C instead of 30°C? Or for that matter, so what if it is 12°C instead of 10°C? In the cooler months, I think we'd all welcome and extra degree or two.

    And we all live through quite large temperature variations. Melbourne can easily get down to the low single-digit temperatures, and can reach highs in the forties. So, what does an extra degree or two matter?

    It may seem trivial to be concerned about a degree to two increase in temperature, so why are the climate scientists concerned?

    The quote above in the box refers to climate, whereas the rhetorical questions above are about the weather.

    Take a look at the monthly mean maximum temperature statistics for Melbourne (Mean Maximum Temperature - 086071 - Bureau of Meteorology )
    Statistic (Annual)
    Mean 19.8°C
    Lowest 18.6°C
    Median 19.8°C
    Highest 21.8°C
    The highest annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature is 2°C higher than the average annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature

    A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  37. #5287
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Six degrees of separation.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What does a couple of degrees matter?
    Apparently not much, especially in law and political science.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The quote above in the box refers to climate, whereas the rhetorical questions above are about the weather.
    Well then why ask questions about the weather? Woodbe would not like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Take a look at the monthly mean maximum temperature statistics for Melbourne
    Is this part of a new Anthropogenic Melbourne Warming (AMW) hypothesis you are going to be raising? One city does not constitute a global phenomenon. But one city may constitute a UHI.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    The highest annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature is 2°C higher than the average annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature
    I would hope the highest was higher than the average. Similarly I would hope the lowest was lower than the average.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.
    What's your point.

    A temperature drop of only 1.2 degrees would make the average year in the future the same as the coldest year in the past.

    Just for Melbourne, of course.

  38. #5288
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Expensive and useless, wanna buy some?

    A CARBON tax will have to be set at $60 a tonne -- three times the expected $20 tax to be set next year -- to force electricity generators to switch from dirty brown coal in southeastern Australia to cleaner gas to reduce greenhouse emissions.

    Industry and investment analyses have also found compensation lower than Kevin Rudd promised would destroy up to 60 per cent of the value of brown coal electricity generators, place the electricity network "at risk", cut power, create cost spikes and close generating companies.

    Confidential analyses conducted by global financial services giant Morgan Stanley and Victorian power companies examining Labor's plans, obtained by The Weekend Australian, find a carbon price of $20 a tonne will not significantly cut carbon emissions but will damage companies and push up retail power costs.

    The research paper said that without compensation the debt burden on the brown coal electricity plants would place "the network at risk".

    Other industry analysis has found that investment in the medium term, taking into account rising gas prices and a "carbon price of $20-$25 a tonne, simply destroys existing coal-fired generation without providing financial incentive replacement gas generation".

    Carbon price 'would need to be tripled' to force change from coal-fired electricity | The Australian
    Read the full story and you will realise our government have no idea what they are doing.

    They are selling a champagne future on a beer budget.

    Their cost projections do not even make gas viable, but they are promising a solar and wind nirvana that is many multiples more expensive.

    And remember, all designed to save about .05 percent of human caused CO2 emissions by 2020, assuming we do not increase coal exports, which we intend to based on the governments mining tax projections, which will render our domestic efforts useless anyway.

    It will costs us taxpayers hundreds of billions in real dollars, all for zero environmental benefit.

    JuLIAR's selling it. The question is, are we buying it?

  39. #5289
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What a joke!

    THE enthusiastic applause in the US couldn't drown out the angry clamour at home. While Julia Gillard was making her address to congress, Tony Abbott was making a visit to a steel factory in Gillard's Victorian electorate.
    No policy nuances necessary. The Opposition Leader knows that for all the government talk of "doing the right thing" with its carbon tax, the public is hearing a very different and much more disturbing message.

    The key message is one of electricity costs jumping even more sharply than they are already. And to achieve what, exactly? Few people, even within the ALP, sound quite so convinced of the logic or the timing any more.

    This is not only because Gillard's personal credibility is badly frayed given she is going back on her election commitment that no government she led would adopt a carbon tax. The larger problem of policy credibility extends well beyond that. Increasing numbers of voters don't comprehend why Australia is proceeding in this direction when its main trading partners, competitors and much larger emitters are backing away. The vague hopes of an international agreement at Copenhagen, always overblown, have become a sharp-edged mirror recording the lack of any such advance for the foreseeable future.

    And for those still wanting Australia to "do the right thing", it is obvious that a national contribution of 1.5 per cent of the world's emissions will hardly tip the balance in limiting climate change if the scales are so weighted the other way.


    Climate subject to politics | The Australian
    A great summary of the current state of this mess.

    A long but accurate picture of how this debacle is sucking the life out of our nations progress. We should be discussing how to build our economic prosperity, how to improve our health system, how to better educate our children, how to influence international policy to mirror our own. But no, we are instead planning our own sacrifice on a giant green altar.

  40. #5290
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,401

    Default

    Still in Melbourne, contract has been extended for a few weeks. Still in this black hole in Kew where no TV, mobile or wireless broadband can penetrate. It's all the fault of them greenies, planting all those trees on the footpath. If they got rid of them then people could park on the footpath like we do in Qld then traffic would flow better too.

    I was working yesterday so I missed the carbon tax rally here. According to the Herald Sun which prints nothing but pure gospel a huge crowd of 400 turned up to protest against the tax and a mere 8000 turned up to support it. A clear victory for those opposing the tax.

    It's the new "denier math"

  41. #5291
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Answered your own question really.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    I was working yesterday so I missed the carbon tax rally here.
    Yes, that point has already been made, as us working types don't have the time to play dress up and March in the street like the usual hand out brigades who receive the taxes we give:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    As usual, the silent majority have to work and pay taxes so will likely be too busy to go to the rally. But if you can spare a few hours:

    CANBERRA - the big one!
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 12:00pm
    Location: Parliament House
    Register/more info: Click here for the facebook group or go to http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/

    MELBOURNE
    Date: 12 March
    Time: 9:30am for 10:00am start
    Location: Julia Gillard's Electorate Office, 6 Synnot Street Werribee, Vic
    Email: stopcarbontax@gmail.com
    Register/more info: Click here

    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Parliament House, Spring Street, Melbourne
    Register/more info: Click here

    SYDNEY
    Date: 2 April
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: NSW Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney
    Register/more info: Click here

    BRISBANE
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Qld Parliament, Cnr George and Alice Streets
    Register/more info: Click here

    ADELAIDE
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Parliament House
    Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com


    PERTH
    Date: 23 March
    Time: 10:30am
    Location: Parliament House, Harvest Terace, Perth
    Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au
    Register on Facebook: Click here

    Come on pensioners, do yourselves a favour.

    I'm gonna put in a few hours for the Perth one. Cos freedom isn't free, it costs folks like you and me, and if you don't put in your buck o' five, who will?

    But play nice, don't go waving your walking frames around and knocking out some nice old lady's dentures.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    According to the Herald Sun which prints nothing but pure gospel a huge crowd of 400 turned up to protest against the tax and a mere 8000 turned up to support it. A clear victory for those opposing the tax.
    A clear victory? No wonder you guys are so easily misled by flawed statistics.

    Here's the organiser, just a Joe Bloggs like the rest of us:

    As key organiser of the “No to Carbon Tax” Community Rally, Tony Hooper responded best when he said:
    “These activists groups are nothing more than an extension of left wing government policy, whose protests are filled with paid activists and professional agitators. The rally at Werribee was a true grass roots campaign and we began with 5 people in a café two weeks ago, and ended with 500 in the streets of Labor heartland, never before has Melbourne’s west seen a turn out like it against a sitting ALP member”
    “This is the problem with this issue, groups like Getup send out a note and hey presto a couple of thousand turn up, but this not representative, these are activists who would protest at anything, we have seen them before in the streets during summits and visits by the US officials.”
    “Our group was a true reflection of the community, not of an organised left wing movement, and the anger is there and growing and from what I understand the crowd in Canberra on March 23 will eclipse anything that groups like Getup and their left wing cohorts can arrange, and they will be true community representatives, not just a group of paid activists.”
    “The rally was a huge success in Werribee and far exceeded the expectations of the organisers and a clear sign of the pain that the community feels that this tax will cause.”

    Over 500 Australians Rally Outside Gillard's Office - Menzies House
    And I understand a few different types of mathematics, but have never heard of this one. Please explain?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    It's the new "denier math"
    Perhaps understanding that consistent national polling is showing a shift away from the government pushing this farce to the factor of about 1.5 million voters should help your understanding of what is a "clear victory".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Coalition from 43 to 54, that's + 11 for those still counting.

    Labor from 57 to 46, that's - 11 for those still counting.
    Just providing some context for the Get Up! stunts.

  42. #5292
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What a fraud!

    WAYNE SWAN: The science is there. I know it's disputed by sceptics like Mr Abbott and others. The science is clear...

    Insiders - 13/03/2011: Japan faces crisis in wake of tsunami - Insiders - ABC
    The science is clear is it Wayne? Does anyone believe this man?

    WAYNE SWAN: ... so essential to our children and grandchildren.
    So, we are back on the emotional blackmail bandwagon again, so much for arguing the science.

    WAYNE SWAN: All those climate change sceptics out there that want to deny the science, they can keep their head in the sand but we're going to get with the 21st century Barrie.
    Every sceptic I know and have read about fully supports all the scientific facts. What's this idiot on about?

    WAYNE SWAN: I notice there's been some criticism that we announced an emissions trading scheme and then didn't provide all of the detail.
    Er, Wayne, you announced a Carbon Tax, that is actually a Carbon Dioxide Tax that you are still lying about. IF, and that's a big IF you sort yourself out, there MAY be an ETS somewhere in the never never future. Stop Lying Wayne!

    WAYNE SWAN: And we'll put a final emissions trading scheme up and of course people can make their judgment.
    Carbon Dioxide Tax, liar.


    WAYNE SWAN: But we're up for the argument Barrie because we're right, it's good for the economy, good for the country and it's good for the environment.
    Economy, country, environment. Liar, liar and liar.

    WAYNE SWAN: And when you're a Queenslander and you look north to the Great Barrier Reef you understand that climate change is something you've got to deal with.
    Can any of you Queenslander's up there see this. I have not seen anything on the news. (Doh, fell for the emotional blackmail again).

    WAYNE SWAN: What happens with emissions trading is a few of the largest polluters have to buy permits. That delivers revenue. That revenue is then delivered if you like to households and industry by way of assistance. That's how the scheme works.
    Oh, now I see. Just one thing Wayne, where's the bit where the Planet Earth starts to cool down??? Huh???

  43. #5293
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    The science is clear is it Wayne? Does anyone believe this man?

    So, we are back on the emotional blackmail bandwagon again, so much for arguing the science.


    Every sceptic I know and have read about fully supports all the scientific facts. What's this idiot on about?


    Er, Wayne, you announced a Carbon Tax, that is actually a Carbon Dioxide Tax that you are still lying about. IF, and that's a big IF you sort yourself out, there MAY be an ETS somewhere in the never never future. Stop Lying Wayne!


    Carbon Dioxide Tax, liar.

    Economy, country, environment. Liar, liar and liar.


    Can any of you Queenslander's up there see this. I have not seen anything on the news. (Doh, fell for the emotional blackmail again).


    Oh, now I see. Just one thing Wayne, where's the bit where the Planet Earth starts to cool down??? Huh???
    nice work
    Doc
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  44. #5294
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    What does a couple of degrees matter?
    According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18°C (1.33 ± 0.32°F) during the 20th century.

    Climate model projections summarised in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4°C (2.0 to 11.5°F) during the 21st century.
    So, what does a degree to two matter? What does it matter if the forecast top temperature is 32°C instead of 30°C? Or for that matter, so what if it is 12°C instead of 10°C? In the cooler months, I think we'd all welcome and extra degree or two.

    And we all live through quite large temperature variations. Melbourne can easily get down to the low single-digit temperatures, and can reach highs in the forties. So, what does an extra degree or two matter?

    It may seem trivial to be concerned about a degree to two increase in temperature, so why are the climate scientists concerned?

    The quote above in the box refers to climate, whereas the rhetorical questions above are about the weather.

    Take a look at the monthly mean maximum temperature statistics for Melbourne (Mean Maximum Temperature - 086071 - Bureau of Meteorology )
    Statistic (Annual)
    Mean 19.8°C
    Lowest 18.6°C
    Median 19.8°C
    Highest 21.8°C
    The highest annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature is 2°C higher than the average annual-average-mean-maximum-temperature

    A temperature rise of two degrees would make the average year in the the future the same as the hottest year in the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Is this part of a new Anthropogenic Melbourne Warming (AMW) hypothesis you are going to be raising? One city does not constitute a global phenomenon. But one city may constitute a UHI.

    (....)

    What's your point.

    A temperature drop of only 1.2 degrees would make the average year in the future the same as the coldest year in the past.

    Just for Melbourne, of course.

    So, do you think if we enlarge the geographic zone we averaqge over it will make a difference to the outcome? Say, what if we considered the Victorian average annual temperatures? Or, perhaps we could consider the Australian average annual temperatures? Why don't we consider global average annual temperature? Will it make a difference to my statement?

    The graph below shows the global average temperatures year-by-year. The data points are the little black squares on the graph. Note, the difference between a hot year and an average year is quite small - very small compared to a 2 degrees temperature rise.



    (from: Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots )

    A couple of degrees temperature rise would make the typical year far hotter than any year beforehand.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  45. #5295
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Poor Greg, credibility is in tatters.

    GC is Greg Combet.

    GC: Well it is very early days. We have been two weeks since we announced a framework for carbon pricing and that is of course designed to create the incentive for large polluters in our economy to cut their pollution and to drive investment in clean energy but it is going to be a long debate and there is a long way to go and we understand there responsibility to explain the issues to people and explain why we are doing this and at the end of the day, the foundation for tackling climate change and cutting pollution levels in our atmosphere of course is the science of climate change and we are doing a lot to try and make sure that information is available to people so that they can understand what those arguments are and just last week Professor Garneau who is advising the government about these issues, released an update on a science paper and people can access through our department of climate change website if they wish to.


    http://www.international.to/index.ph...news&Itemid=74
    framework for carbon pricing = Carbon Dioxide Tax

    cut their pollution + cutting pollution levels in our atmosphere = This is what you are currently breathing out that is not on Greg Combet's own departments pollution list. Under this scheme, all companies can actually increase their output of soot, carbon dust, cyanide, sulphur dioxide, increasing smog, acid rain and atmospheric toxins without any penalty.

    the science of climate change + understand what those arguments are = Greg, if you keep calling Carbon Dioxide a pollution, and keep calling it Carbon instead of Carbon Dioxide, how the hell is the average person suppose to figure out what the hell you people are on about. Sort yourself out man, you used to be so much better than this!

    GC: Well, I think it is a fiercely contested issue in the public arena, and we're seeing it play out of course in the current debate between the government and Tony Abbott. And of course, the government respects the climate science and once you respect what the scientists are telling you, then you have a public responsibility, public policy responsibility to tackle climate change. And what that means is that you have to reduce the levels of pollution, of greenhouse gases going into our atmosphere and play a responsible role internationally. And so in the public policy sphere, it is well established of course that if you want to reduce pollution at the least cost to your economy, and the least impact across the economy, then you use a market mechanism and that's what a carbon price is and that's what the government has announced and of course we announced our board policy intentions a couple of weeks ago, and that was to allow the community and relevant stakeholders, particularly the business community to know what the policy intention is, and engage in the discussion, understand the issues better and particularly for business to engage in the detailed discussion of the design of the policy and we think that's the right approach to have taken.
    once you respect what the scientists are telling you - I've got tens of thousands of scientists I can arrange for you to talk to Greg. Are you free?

    reduce the levels of pollution + reduce pollution = Every time you say this Greg, you leave us no choice but to begin deciding whether you are a liar or an idiot? At least update the list on your own department's website to give yourself at least a veneer of credibility. I know you won't do this, because the last thing you need now is an argument of chemists about whether carbon dioxide is actually pollution.

    GC: Well, because the policy is nonsense of course. He's basically suggesting that he will pay tax - use taxpayer funds I should say, to pay some selected polluters a subsidy to reduce some pollution. It's all a cost to the budget, it’s all a cost to taxpayers. We've indicated through proper analysis that it represents a $30 billion hole in the fiscal position, which represents about a 720 dollar hit per household. Now, Tony Abbott doesn't have a credible policy and he doesn't, because he doesn't respect the science and doesn't think anything is necessary, but what I describe it as is a fig leaf, for his smear campaign. The government does take it seriously, we look to do it at the lowest economic cost in the fairest way and it must be remembered at this point in particular, what a carbon price is, is a requirement on the large polluters in the economy to purchase a permit for every tonne of pollution that they emit and the money that they pay for those permits the government has committed to do as follows: firstly to ensure that households are assisted with any price impacts and in particular of course we will be concerned to provide generous assistance to low income households and pensioners; secondly, that money will be used to support the jobs in the most effected industries and that is particularly the trade exposed part of the economy, that is very emissions-intensive. Areas like the steel industry and aluminium and thirdly we will use those funds to support clean energy, climate change programmes so that we're making the technological change we need to for the long-term future. And that's very important to understand. This is a tax effectively on polluters that goes to an emissions trading scheme after a transitional period. The funds that are raised will be used to help households, industry and climate change programmes.
    720 dollar hit per household - Greg, how is it that you can cost Mr Rabbit's policy down to the exact dollar in less than a week (based on more lies), but you cannot cost your own policy after years of economic research with all the power of treasury? Credibility is in the toilet now Greg.

    This is a tax - Albeit late but true admission.

    LO is Laurie Oakes.

    LO: On that very issue, can I show you something that President Obama said when he was still trying to push his scheme through Congress. Look at this. “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily sky rocket.” That's what I call straight talking, Minister?

    LO: On our existing power stations, let me play the rest of what the President said. Watch this. “Regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you know, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that cost on to consumers.” Now why isn’t it the same in Australia, and if it is, why are you not speaking as plainly as the President?

    LO: But what the President says there, speaks directly to fears among Australian families that they are going to have their cost of living hit for six. Now, can you give us assurance now that that will not happen?
    Wow, Obummer told the truth and got smashed! No wonder JuLIAR and her team are lying like champions.

    GC: Well, what we anticipate to be the case is that there will be a modest increase in the cost of living, and can I emphasise it again - this is effectively a tax on pollution that transitions to an emissions trading scheme. It is applied to the large polluters in the economy who will have the obligation to purchase a permit for every tonne of pollution that they produce, and the revenue that that raises will be used to assist households and assist industry and assist in climate change programmes, but in respect of households, to assist with the cost of living impact and will have a particular emphasis on low income households and assisting pensioners because we are at the end of the day a Labour Government and we are going to make sure that important economic reform like this is fair in how it is applied. There will be price impacts, the Prime Minister has been right up front with that. We expect them to be modest. But we will assist people to meet them.
    modest increase - If you haven't even designed the scheme yet Greg, how do you know what the increases will be?

    There will be price impacts - Thanks champ. Some people were still wondering.

    We expect them to be modest - You didn't expect to burn down hundreds of houses either Greg, how's that insulation inspection program going for you? That was a fairly simple program Greg, National Energy reform, economic reform, tax reform and cost of living reform, all driven by the greenies should work out much better?

  46. #5296
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Easy target.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    nice work
    Doc
    Swan is such a clown. I was actually missing JuLIAR while he was in charge.

  47. #5297
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Again, what's your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    A couple of degrees temperature rise would make the typical year far hotter than any year beforehand.
    A couple of degrees temperature fall would make the typical year far colder than any year beforehand.

    Again, what's your point?

    These statements of the blatantly obvious are futile.

    Are you trying to argue that the "psychic computers output" should be treated as scientific facts?

    I hope not.

    And we can all go through the re-posting of the same pretty pictures again if you want, but I bet my 500 million years of data makes your few decades look like the "cherry pick" as you guys so often accuse others of.

    And still, you keep only showing the effects with no causes stated. This is dangerous as when we asked Woodbe about it, he did the runner. We'd hate to lose another opponent by pointing out the flaws in their logic.

  48. #5298
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    A couple of degrees temperature fall would make the typical year far colder than any year beforehand.

    Again, what's your point?

    These statements of the blatantly obvious are futile.

    Are you trying to argue that the "psychic computers output" should be treated as scientific facts?
    I'm very pleased that you agree that it "blatantly obvious" that the earth is warming (you'd have to be a fool, or just extremely ignorant, to argue otherwise against actual measurements). 2 degrees cooler would be a real concern, but as we all know the FACTS show that the earth is warming.

    BTW, what computer models did I refer to? I only quoted FACTS and historical MEASURED RESULTS. But. yep, the models to indicate that more warming is going to happen above and beyond what we have already experienced.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  49. #5299
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    I was working yesterday so I missed the carbon tax rally here. According to the Herald Sun which prints nothing but pure gospel a huge crowd of 400 turned up to protest against the tax and a mere 8000 turned up to support it. A clear victory for those opposing the tax.

    It's the new "denier math"
    Are you referring to this...

    Outside Prime Minister Julia Gillard's electorate office in Werribee on Saturday, 400 protesters gathered with Liberal Victorian senators Mitch Fifield and Scott Ryan to protest against the federal government's plan to put a price on carbon.
    Meanwhile, at Treasury Place in Melbourne's CBD, an estimated 8000 protesters gathered to support the prime minister's carbon tax plan and call for action on climate change.


    From: Carbon tax protesters rally Victoria
    Isn't it heart warming to know that a basic science education hasn't been lost on the masses. But, I suppose it is hard to ignore the hard scientific facts (increased CO2 levels, increased global temperatures, rising sea-levels).

    I don't understand why some make out that AGW is a political issue. The fact is that it is a scientifically observed phenomena - it is real. It is only our response to mitigating AGW is a political issue.

    However. it is good to see that we have moved on somewhat and the focus has now shifted to the carbon price mechanism (tax, trading scheme, incentives, etc.).

    I think I may have said it before, but just in case I didn't, I think that a price on carbon is inevitable (regardless of which party is is in political power), the science is overwhelming and governments around the world are acting (or reacting) accordingly. Ecomonic incentives and disincentives are just political tools for changing behaviour.

    BTW, welcome to Melbourne PhilT2!
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  50. #5300
    Novice
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    ACT
    Posts
    48

    Default

    I found this article interesting. Basically it is an exercise in 'life cycle analysis' of a computor product following the introduction of a carbon tax. It highlights one other aspect of this tax, and that is the added GST on a product. I hope you find it as enlightening as I did.
    Macs and the carbon tax - Australian Macworld

Page 106 of 377 FirstFirst ... 6 56 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 156 206 ... 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
  •