Prof. Richard Lindzen reveals the real reason for the carbon tax

[Lightf00t1]

Anyone who believes in man-made global warming is retarded. It's politics, not science. Left-wing politics.

[Antithropocentric]

How much does anyone want to bet that right-wingers would have no problem raising taxes to stop an ASTEROID from hitting the Earth (if astronomers said it would happen, in say, 2035). You'd see a very limited amount of "asteroid denial" or whining about "tax scams."

The reason? Because you can't blame an asteroid on PEOPLE. Anti-enviros can't accept the concept of people mucking up "God's creation" which they believe was put here solely as a materials warehouse for humans.

[Mackberserk]

@Antithropocentric That's quite a comparison. It's extremely easy to calculate the trajectory and velocity of an asteroid, and would thus have irrefutable evidence based on established laws of physics... Climate change however involves far too many unknown variables and interpretations to simplify it down to your analogy, starting with (but by no means limited to) predictions of temperature increase and what potential impact those temps COULD have on earth's inhabitants

[mphello]

Even Michael Ruppert - who pisses me because he was a dirty policeman and CIA agent

and then goes and has a bunch of children like the filthy breeder he is - even HE agrees Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and peak oil are real, serious, and now (global peak oil is now 7 years in the past). The end of oil won't save us if we continue to frack and burn coal. Outlaw coal NOW. Solar and wind power all the way for electricity.

[mphello]

Lindzen has been demolished so many times, it's not funny.

AGW is real and serious. Only raving ideological fucktards pretend that everything Lindzen says - no matter how much proof otherwise is thrown at them - trump the hundreds of climate scientists who have proven AGW is a fact: James Hansen, Ben Santer, Richard Alley.

The videos of Potholer54, greenman3610, and the website skepticalscience completely demolish these coal-funded extremist retards.

[TheKickerboy99]

Well Canada finally back out of the ridiculous Kyoto Accord. THANK YOU Stephen Harper. After a long list of liberal liars making promises no one could possibly keep, a voice of reason in the rush to turn over control of the world to the invested few in this scam to end all scams. When China can say they are reducing we may have a chance at overall reduction. Canada’s CO2 increased 20% in the last 10 yrs, China’s 253%. Don’t even start trying to preach to anyone China.

[marsglorious]

You are missing the point. This is not a matter of saving the planet or reducing world temperature, it is to prevent further rise, and, yes, climate modelling is hard and many climate models get it wrong. The earth is fine, it has survived repeated severe climate change events for millions of years, it's just how will our economy and way of life deal with problems such as rising sea levels and more severe droughts. The carbon tax is revenue neutral - makes no money. Also remember, peak oil.

[hopeintruth1]

The Earth has been cooling since 1998 .

[hopeintruth1]

I did not buy my 3kw solar array because I had some misguided fantasy about saving the planet , I got them to be more self sufficient . They will never produce the power it took to make them , but nether will my TV set . The fact is that the power we use in Australia is the least amount of harm we will do to our environment .

[guberskank]

@hopeintruth1 of course solar panels will pay back their energy cost lol

[hopeintruth1]

@guberskank

I don't just say theses things to here my head rattle , and now that W.A has halved the amount we get back for our solar power it will take twice as long to " NEVER PRODUCE THE POWER IT COST TO BUY " I didn't fork out 20 grand of my own money in ignorance , the problem is most people are scientifically illiterate . The fact is solar power is incredibly inefficient . Gasifacation the process of turning biomass into syngas is MAGNITUDES more efficient and environmentally friendly .

[guberskank]

@hopeintruth1 as long as its waste and not biomass created specifically for the generation of energy then it might be more efficient.. even so, your solar panels will probably last more than 50 years.. energy cost paid off in 2-4 years and even if the feed in tariff didnt exist you'll end up way ahead by the time the system starts failing.. and if the local gov did cut the tariff it wouldn't be retrospective, if it is then the gov would be liable for breach of contract

[hopeintruth1]

The carbon tax is a crime against humanity .

The U.N. wants 80% of us dead in sixty years .

Don't believe they could be plotting the deaths of your children and grand children , go look at there web sight for your self . 80% population reduction . Genocide !

The carbon tax is a good start for them .

[guberskank]

@hopeintruth1 how about a bill of rights, maybe thats worth more than a cent in ur buck eh

[hopeintruth1]

@guberskank There is nothing more important to me than the rights of the individual , when anyones rights are eroded every ones rights are eroded

I a,m a true environmentalist not a corpratist masquerading as a socialist in order to by up the world with fiat paper .

[guberskank]

@hopeintruth1 then why waste energy on something so trivial as a carbon tax, lets put pressure on the gov to start discussion on a bill of rights for australian citizens.. carbon tax is a non-issue, the reality is we are heating up the earth (basic physics ie ghg's).. even if the cloud feedback ends up being a non issue like lindzen suggests (highly unlikely at best if you look at conflicting studies) we are still artificially heating up the earth.. a future limit in ghgs IS INEVITABLE

[hopeintruth1]

@guberskank I agree to a point . The carbon tax is designed to reduce population , so for the malthusian ruling class who would like to kill off 80% of us its not pointless at all . I,m all for a bill of rights but our government would just ignore it like they ignore our constitution .

[guberskank]

@hopeintruth1 if you have a look at the most influential organisations you'd be surprised, australian media, youtube, wiki, google (and just about every other search engine), facebook, myspace all lead to the same spot.. zionism.. both of our major politic parties are heavily influenced (donations,ministers have come out after leaving, axing of rudd after israeli critisim, bias on middle east reporting, etc).. they even use fluoride in our water, imho the carbon tax isn't part of the agenda

[hopeintruth1]

@guberskank The central banks are about to call out Monopoly ! cause they just about own the hole world brought with nothing but paper and lies . Most people have no idea that the central banks of the world have owners and by extension own us through the power of money creation . Wether you call them holding companies quasi govt departments or privet banks there purpose is the same , to transfer dept to the people and profits to the international bankers .

[mphello]

@hopeintruth1 Obviously you do not have the mental capacity as a raving conservative

to comprehend the difference between actively killing someone versus preventing them from breeding.

All those conservative idiots who whine and cry about "illegal immigration" (which is a myth - there is NO proof for it whatsoever) hypocritically do and say NOTHING about reducing world overpopulation and overconsumption in Africa, India, China, the USA.

[hopeintruth1]

@mphello

I am not a conservative .The left right paradigm is an artificial construct disguised as an imperial truth . Its purpose is to convince you that you have a choice , that you have come to a conclusion and have made a decision .

[mphello]

@hopeintruth1 Yeah - the left-right paradigm is an artificial construct - until the rightwing ridicules groups lobbying against AGW, or for animal rights, or prisoners' freedom, etc as being "leftwing".

[djaef]

Bolt is such a dolt. He misses the point as always. Let's just keep digging coal out of the ground and polluting the earth eh.. Don't worry about the possibilities opening up in clean and renewable energy or try to improve our footprint.

[kevvys1a1woos]

@djaef Not really. We can do both - mine coal and develop new technologies. Only coal and hydro can supply base load generation at present. We certainly don't need a carbon tax that hurts everyone and achieves nothing.

[marsglorious]

@kevvys1a1woos The carbon tax is designed to offset whatever cost is passed on to customers through tax cuts in other areas. This is designed to promote renewables and make fossil fuels less competitive. These are long term policies, the scientific field of renewable is very active area of research. Solar panels are getting better, we are talking about 60% cuts by 2050 - think how good renewables could be by then. At current growth rates, coals is also set to run out by then anyway, + Peak Oil.

[TheKickerboy99]

@marsglorious What a bunch of hooey, oil is running out. Your ignorance on the subject is apparent.

[mphello]

@marsglorious  Great comment!

[kjemma]

@marsglorious Solar panels are ancient technology. They are not getting better. They are expensive, fragile - and provide precious little energy compared to the real needs of this planet. Did you know that if you plasted your whole roof with solar-panels, it would take you WEEKS to gather the same amount of energy that you can get from one gallon of gazoline? And that is if you have constant sun from crystal clear skies all the time. Yes, renewables are the future, but in 60 years

[marsglorious]

@kjemma You are underestimating solar panels. Solar panels are within the scientific fields of nanotechnology and have been growing exponentially. Germany, a green pioneer, has a 30% growth rate in the solar industry and has just hit 20% electricity from renewables. I for one, have solar panels and they aren't that crap, perhaps 15 years ago, but they run everything fine and they are much cheaper now. Judging solar panels now is like judging computers in the 80s.

[hopeintruth1]

@djaef

Modern coal plants put out water and co2 , thats it .

I no its difficult for the malthusian mind to comprehend but in this age we have wet ventury scrubbers and other anti pollution devices . Modern coal plants like cars are very efficient and clean burning . In the 80s and 90s car emissions were cleaned up so much as they actually clean the air in many cities . The reason they cant just set higher emission targets is because co2 is not a pollutant .

I am an environmentalist not a fool

[MegaPostman77]

Well people. Here you have it. The world's finest climatologist has spoken. Richard Lindzen has been studying climate over a forty year period and there is no-one who even comes close to this individual's level of understanding of climate processes. Oh, and spare me the nonsense of how we are raping the fragile planet! I would argue that any planet that has been around for 4.5 BILLION years is hardly 'fragile' or for that matter - capable of being raped. GET A LIFE!!

[tubester4567]

PT2.. incentive for people and business to move towards a sustainable future. Even if you think 99% of the scientific community is wrong, its still a worthy goal and will improve our lives and our environment. The world (even China) are moving to clean energy, smart business people will see the benefits and investment opportunities and get onboard, then you conservatives will be on the wrong side of history AGAIN.

[tradjick]

@tubester4567 So it is perfectly fine to lie, cheat and steal from the everyday person so long as YOUR belief system is upheld.... hmmmm socialism and facism all at the same time

[tubester4567]

@tradjick Its not my belief system. I'm taking the advice of 99% of the scientific community. My common sense tells me we cant keep raping the earth without some negative affects but If the science told me there is no problem i would accept that.

[tradjick]

@tubester4567 you mean the scientific community left after the witch trials that the politicising of this has caused? BTW the use of such negative emotional index words as "rape" just shows your personal bias and your pathetic inability to be objective in a discussion. The ONLY model the IPCC investigated based on empirical evidenceagainst those totally hypothetical simulations of a complex system we barely understand half of if that had to be massaged into producing even the low end estimates.

[tradjick]

@tubester4567 hockey stick - debunked. death trains - debunked. multiple degrees of warming since '95 - debunked. Simulation model after model debunked. CO2 impact above 20ppm - currently contested but looking debunked. How much myth and lies do you need before you question what the attention/money seeking alarmists posit. I love how, just because it does not suit your worldview you have to not only disregard but attack such an emminent scientist much more knowledgable than yourself... sad.

[tradjick]

@tubester4567 and the outcome... your fellow people hurting NOW because some politicians want even more money and some misguided do-gooders need to feel important. Oh and where is Australia gonna get all those wonderful turbines (and the ongoing parts and maintenance)... why built from OS mined materials, fabricated in OS factories, freighted by OS freight companies... You should also look into just what it takes to make a solar panel. Clean? HA.

[tubester4567]

Oh right. Lets all just keep raping the earth, cutting down trees, polluting the earth because none of it will make a difference. BULLSHIT. Bolt you're a fucking fraud for the business elite, so is this "professor" who is in the minority in the science world. My electricity bills have gone up 100% just from "free market" mechanisms. Why should i be outraged about a further 3% increase to tackle climate change and head towards a sustainable future and clean air? The cost is small, but its an....

[mphello]

@tubester4567 FANTASTIC COMMENT!

[Becs1683]

LOL Andrew Bolt is as bad as Gillard



[NikFromNYC]

The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!

“It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)

“Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

[NikFromNYC]

The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!

“It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of "Climate Change Denial")

“Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)