the lot is a crock of shit, why has the residents of the Illawarra been informed thier land rates will be on the increase due to the carbon tax WTF it isn't in place yet and surely my house is far from the top 30 pollouters in the country
The Carbon Tax is an excellent thing. It is wonderful that it is going to be implemented next year. The issue is, it has been weakened, and watered down so much, that the very existence of it, is almost irrelevant. The reason it has been watered down so much, is because the average guy doesn't actually understand what it is. Therefore, in order to get it accepted by the people, the government has made it so cheap, that compensation is a cop out. It should be, at least, $30/ton.
Wow isn't it already proven that when the temperature of the earth increases co2 increases from the oceans. All that is happening is the sun is going through a natural cycle that does not just effect earth but causes all the other planets in our galaxy to be warmer. Its really simple at the end of the day, scientists just want our society to be what they call a "level one society" one that doesn't rely on fossil fuels.
Julia u are shit, put the carbon tax to a vote, the 20 million odd people or is it now 60 million people in Aus now... due to all the boat people coming in that u said u would stop, the millions of ppl in aus will tell u what u need to do
Unless your a Fairy Tell believer of the "Adam and Eve" story, you aught to know that carbon is the building blocks of all life on this planet, it was the abundance of carbon on this planet that brings us here today. Global warming is a cyclic phenomena that has existed before humans and will exist after the end of humans too. Plant life thrive on carbon just as we thrive on air. Those people whom truly believe that carbon is destroying the planet seriously need some help. You would have to be
Reality is that the natural carbon cycle adds and removes carbon, whereas human activity adds without removing.
Carbon pollution isn't simply a political agenda, it's a human agenda.
The monetary loss may be burdensome to families now, but it seems that it is but a small price to pay for sustaining a better environment for every person, animal and plant.
@mithilag - you seem like a nice young Aussie, and your comment sounds reasonable, so I'll take the time to reply. When I was 19 or 20 like you, (I'm 50+ now) I too thought that government was generally well-reasoned and honest. I was wrong. Governments are generally mafia-like in the way they run, and the people that populate upper positions. I ask you, if CO2 was 'pollution' (a propaganda-word) and destroying our planet, then WHY are gas and oil wells pumping FULL-ON along with coal exports?
.. (cont) Why doesn't Juliar Dullard STOP oil, gas and coal EXPORTS? No need to tax Australians, just STOP the exports. Answer that for me please. Going back to your volcano vs human CO2/greenhouse gas figures, I'm not even going to argue, but take another look at the Chilean Volcano photos again - you know, the one that shut down air-travel in Australia recently? That visible plume across the southern hemishere is much LESS than human activity? I call bull on that. How do volcanoes REMOVE Co2?
...(cont 2) The scientific truth is that volcanic gases keep our planet ALIVE, because without volcanoes our oceans and atmosphere wouldn't exist (that's where the H2O comes from - Hydrogen and Oxygen from volcanoes) and the Earth would be an ice-ball. In previous era's the CO2 percentage in the air was EIGHT times higher and there were no deserts. If human activity DOUBLES CO2 it would be a GOOD thing. Wake up people, the CO2 scam is totally a political power/tax grab and nothing more. Sheesh.
@whitehorse1959 Thanks for the calm reply, but I'm afraid you don't understand my point of view. I don't believe that the government is fair and honest -- e.g. Julia's lie. I don't support everything any party has to offer; especially not the Labour party. I just care for the environment, that is observably depleting.
We have a bad track-record as humans on this planet to use and abuse the environment. Clearly, it is cheaper to process fossil fuels and thus its prolific use.
@mithilag The life-span of CO2 in the atmosphere is not infinity though. I can piss in a lake for a thousand years and it will not cause the world to flood.
Nobody is against a better environment. The fact is that the policy of carbon trading or taxation doesn't even do anything about the perceived problem. Geo-engineering is a much better solution from a cost-benefit analysis.
Either way, AGW is no case of alarm. There are bigger issues. Like starvation and malaria.
What i think is, Instead of holding dumb signs and protesting like pussys were the Government just laughs at.
We should all gather up and start a riot and destroy the place, burn buildings etc etc. Then Ju-liar will think twice about this crap tax. Show your true anger...
The CON is with the name. If you were born the man: Peter-John: Smith, then you become the beneficiary of the trust: PETER JOHN SMITH (Uppercase: Nomina sunt symbola rerum) and if you look at your driver licence or passport, the name is a false twisted name: SMITH PETER JOHN, their name! not your name and you become the trustee, the government then become the beneficiary. That is how you have lost your sovereign rights: Article: (10) Uniform trust code. You gave away your birth-right name. CON
@aerobique - Thanks for your comment aerobique, I believe you believe that - it's almost typical of those who would never question government. Government however is populated by well-practiced LIARS & psycho's who have no compunction about the LIES that will line their pockets and grant them more power to control everyone via taxation. Please look up "Agenda 21". Check the other references I've already made here. We are being DUPED by Grade-A arseholes. CO2 = LIFE.
@whitehorse1959 _ "Thanks for your comment aerobique, I believe you believe that .." science is not about "believe" - get that+#+ - "CO2 = LIFE." and co2 is a usuall well balanced, heat trapping gas in our atmosphere, get that noone lies to you-- besides amoral, corporate, "rightwing" oil ideology.. A-moral.. Environmental "tree huggers" have other intentions.. get that good science is provable, simply.. nice overview: climate. nasa. gov /keyindicators
@aerobique - Okay. So you 'know' we have a problem with CO2 levels do you? Let us investigate solutions to this 'problem' shall we? Why pussy-foot around? Let's encourage our government to STOP mining coal, gas and oil immediately. Forget taxing it, just pass laws to make it illegal in order to save our planet. I have five children that I want to save, not to mention future grand-children. In place of fossil fuels, lets encourage our government to build modern melt-down-proof atomic reactors.
"Forget taxing it, just pass laws to make it illegal in order to save our planet."
Agree, lets move forward.
_
"In place of fossil fuels, lets encourage our government to build modern melt-down-proof atomic reactors."
umm.. hmm..
As shrt-term "bridge tech"
->FULL focus on "renewable" -clean energy, period.
Get rid of the monopolies, (also nuclear*cough*) Where to leave the trash..? moon? highly self-destructive. BUT "better" than the co2 intensive, geocidal insanity.
@markvansomething well as a climate change sceptic who has not been brainwashed by all this tax bullshit,if carbon dioxide tax does come ,why should polluters pay the european union for a licence.why not of oyr own goverment then the money stays here..if money goes over seas where is the so-called compo money coming from...china again..still, sorry
When 'researching' climate change. Be sure to check out references and reliable sources because many sites are misleading and have no evidence. Only believe PEER REVIEWED sources which have valid and reliable evidence to make your judgement on climate change.
@randomsrvapps - I studied it without bias. I started at the other end, first believing the government. Look at the science and then the politics, and now I can see the CO2 tax for what it is - a diabolical, wicked hoax. We are being butt-raped by these pretend do-gooders for their self-aggrandising enrichment. We're stuffed mate.
Shame seeing the motor was built via a tafe NSW teacher & funded via the tafe too, yet there was no cash in it for the oil companies so the Govt put a stop to the idea..
An "Arsehole" called Al Gore, for the want of a better description, came out with a ridiculous theory 25 years ago. As a way to start a new industry in renewable and recyclable products, by scaring people into thinking that if they didn't tow the line they would all basically die of AGW due to carbon dioxide.
Now the Australian Labor government are trying it on, to pull them out of the debt ridden abyss they now find themselves in!
. come on people how can we be so arrogant and think we can actually damage earth within 200-500 years ( counting since industrial revolution era)... this rocky planet been here since last 4.5 billion years... and gone through many climate changes..Just remember just a tiny solar change can bring all humanity to halt ... but hey there are people who still believes world was created 1000s of years ago within a week by god..lmao ...
10% of any carbon tax goes to the UN towards a global government - an UNELECTED tyranny. If you don't know about the United Nations dreadful record, time you did some research. Gillards strings are being pulled by the likes of UN socialopaths, Obama and Rudd, and that's why she lied. These individuals all want cushy positions within the ever more powerful United Nations, and to hell with whatever pain it delivers to the common debt-cattle. People, be awake to the lies.
The question about the birthday cake is a rhetorical one...the fact is everything will cost more....the question that is not answered is exactly how this money will be used to implement green initiatives ie drive down emission chiefly through alternative power generation...which we have not heard none of.
A global 'pollution crisis' can only be solved by... wait for it... A Global Government (U.N.) So create a seemingly plausible global crisis in peoples minds, and tahdah! Global 'pollution' taxes for a global government. Next step is a global serfdom under technological control of all activity. A Prison Planet. You want that? Watch this... /watch?v=svflvNWo2yM&feature=related and think about it.
Why couldn't we steer away from big government, retain sovereignty, build a safe version of nuclear industry, and go geothermal, and solar, while shutting down the burning of fossil fuels as new power comes online? Forget about a global government (too tyrannical) and start promoting a fossil-fuel-free transport system wherever possible. We don't need to follow a U.N. plan for a Global CO2 Tax at all - we could get faster, safer, results with good Aussie governmental policy instead Get Labor OUT
Sorry ppl, I ran out of patience with Oddy and blocked him, he just wouldn't talk science and wanted to be mildly abusive instead. I'm not at all angry with him, I understand his mindset, but I can't be bothered with it. Hey, I watched "Crude" tonight, and it was quite good, raising some very important issues about our dependence on crude oil, and that peak oil most probably has already occurred. Some would solve the problems with 'oil wars' and de-population (U.N. anyone?)
Why do you guys only sprout links that back up your argument (I fail to see any comments from you about what in the wikipedia articles prove a 'conspiracy' by the australian government, but I state a perfectly logical argument and you can't answer it with a decent response? Is radiation natural? Yes, we have very small amounts of background radiation. Is everyone in Japan worried about radiation leaks atm? Yes..but why as radiation is normal isn't it? What are we worried about? Pollution!!!
Thanks for commenting SalsaL69... Let's see now, you seem annoyed that anyone would argue against the Chicken Little, Earth becomes Venus II, 'the Polar Bears will Drown' crowd. You cast dispersions upon my intelligence and education. Well I'm sad in my pants that you would stoop to name-calling, that's what rabid politicians do, not trained scientists. Shame on you SalsaL69. You also think that Wikipedia is somehow not as good as any paper book. How so? I'm certain that if you open (cont.)
(..cont) one of your paper science books (do you really have any?) and compare any science topic to the equivalent that you find in Wikipedia, you'll be amazed at how up-to-date, informed and complete the Wikipedia entries are, with references to REAL books and by real scientists. So where do you get that viewpoint from? You also try to bring 'big oil bastards' into the argument. Don't try to throw me into a camp, to pigeonhole me as some paid hack, that again is pure politics. (cont 3-s.)
(.. cont 3-s) So please, put your science cap on, forget the Money-n-Power-Hungry crowd (big biz and big gov) and do some more thinking. Einstein was a very famous scientist because he did not get bogged down with a million small details, he saw the bigger picture, and described it with maths. We can do the same. It's okay Salsa, Wikipedia is safe to read, honest! I highly recommend further study. Try reading about volcanoes, their numbers, effect on the planet, how new ones form, (cont 4-s.)
(..cont 4-s) and how all that gas and ash doesn't actually harm the planet. How many megatons of TNT would it take to simulate the Icelandic volcano? How about Mount St. Helens? What happened in the Earths past history when even bigger events took place in Yellowstone or here in Australia at Mt. Warning, NSW? They were super-calderas, and yet the Earth didn't get snuffed out with CO2. I'm telling you clearly, the CO2 scare is a LIE. Don't even get me started on bush-fires around the planet.(end)
..Actually SalsaL69, I doubt that you will do further reading all by yourself, so I'll do it for you. "The primary source of carbon/CO2 is out-gassing from the Earth's interior at mid-ocean ridges, hot-spot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs. Much of the CO2 released at subduction zones is derived from the metamorphism of carbonate rocks sub-ducting with the ocean crust". Sub-sea black and white 'smokers', and sub-sea oil-field leaks add even more. But the air is breathable? Why?
So SalsaL69 (and all who read this) please look past your prejudices and conditioning, and ask yourself honestly to follow up with a clear mind on answering those simple questions. Do you trust big government or big business to do your thinking for you? Do you understand what sheeple are? Are your beliefs based on trust and faith with any group, or are you capable of individual, empirical observation of the world around you? I assert that if CO2 was EVER a problem, we'd not be here to discuss it
@whitehorse1959 You guys are all the same...you say big business and government are promoting renewable energies as a 'conspiracy', however you are asserting that oil, coal, pharmaceuticals, chemical and plastics companies are not into making money? They are the biggest industries in the world. Do you expect people to believe that oil companies don't want to sell oil? And you criticize me for making a personal attack, but call the government Kremlin? You are a hypocrite and scare monger.
@whitehorse1959 Do you realize that the ash from volcanoes actually reflects a lot of radiation? Do you realise that volcanoes and bushfires have been going on for thousands of years, whereas burning of fossil fuels by humans has only gone on for a few hundred (and I'm not talking about 100,000 people 10,000 years ago burning herth fires? Do you have any proof that both bushfires and volcanoes have increased over the past 200 or even 40 years? And who said the Earth would get snuffed out?
If you want to talk about maths I haven't got time to school you so please watch this video and come back to me. I look forward to any comments on the maths discussed in basic detail. This is a perfect video for understanding the 'bigger picture'. I hope it will show you and at the very least those people who are not scientific and may be persuaded by your deluded theories. BTW big oil and coal are not power hungry? LOL
@whitehorse1959 I have many scientific books actually. I learned geology from a climate change skeptic! As well as biology, ecology, physics, maths, inorganic, organic and physical chemistry, sociology, microbiology, solid liquid and gas waste management (i.e. pollution control), chemical engineering process control, water and wastewater treatment. I studied polymer engineering for 3yrs and have a degree in both Chemical & Environmental engineering. I have worked in the oil & water industries...
For anyone who is considering looking up wikipedia for whitehorses links and then listening to his bullshit...also look up "climate change denial". You don't have to be a scientist or engineer or climatologist to understand where he is coming from!!!
how you feel afterwards...you big oil bastards use the most ridiculous unscientific arguments that unfortunately sway a lot of unscientific people. Try lowering your body temperature a few degrees or raise it a few degrees, see how well you survive in that state...all life on this planet exists in a balance...too little sun (or CO2, oxygen, water, etc, etc, etc) or too much has effects. Try giving a plant too much or too little of any of these and see how they go? Grow up...and read a f'n book
What rubbish whitehorse1959..."carbon is needed for life so therefore CO2 is not a problem". Anything can become pollution in the right amounts...water is also essential for life...our bodies are made up somewhere around 60% from water...but try someone holding you under water for 5 minutes and see how happy you are afterwards...try sitting in a room with 100% oxygen for a while rather than 21% and see how well you do then...try eating oil (made up mostly from Carbon and Hydrogen...) and see...
There is a viable alternative to a carbon tax that will reduce emissions, create tens of thousands of long term jobs and result in an electricity bill of only $8 per week for the average Australian household. watch?v=qImNRuV4G0Q
There is an alternative to the carbon tax and it will reduce emissions, create tens of thousands of jobs and result in a weekly power bill of only $8 per week. Don't believe me? watch?v=qImNRuV4G0Q
Look, I understand how citizens of our pleasant nation of Australia can have concerns about the future, and want everyone else to be concerned and 'take action'. I'm saying that we need to start from a basis of scientific and political honesty and quit with the lies and fraud. There are plenty of advancements we can make with our energy supplies, and a good government will gently encourage the right changes without lying and without adding complexity to our taxation system.
But the thing is this - ozone is O3 - just oxygen in a different shaped molecule - created, temporarily, by UV rays from the sun. It breaks down naturally over time, back to O2, but while it is in O3 (ozone) form, it BLOCKS further UV rays. The reason it is lacking over the north and south poles, is simply because the UV activity there is much lower than at the equator. Very simple science. Notice the scare disappeared after the DuPont Corp renewed their patent on refrigerant gas. Google that!
"CO2 is GREEN" means that if you want a greener planet, you need more CO2, not less. Try growing any plants in a greenhouse while removing any trace of CO2 - you'll get no growth. Pump extra CO2 into the greenhouse atmosphere and you will accelerate growth. I was born in 1959, I know the 1970's well, and at that time, the scare was a return of the ice-age! Then the ozone layer was discovered, and they found holes in it at the poles! OMG, WTF!!! we were all going to die from UV rays.
I'm the uploader of this video. I'm pleased to see comments/debate, but please be gentlemanly about it. There is no need for vulgarity, it achieves the opposite of what you want. I'm clearly anti-'climate alarmist' and would like our politicians to be HONEST. It wasn't too long ago that I was actually on the 'other side' and concerned about 'Global Warming'. But a close inspection of the facts, F A C T S, clearly show the whole scare to be an empty nonsense. CO2 is LIFE ITSELF. CO2 is GREEN.
@whitehorse1959 references please? I am particularly interested to know your feelings about extrapolating greenhouse, controlled experiments to the outside world? I'm asking because you do not appear to understand that controlled greenhouse experiments with elevated CO2 do not examine changes in nitrification, water regimes, leaf chemistry and its effects on pests and diseases etc etc etc etc etc etc? Field experiments reveal that elevated CO2 reduces yield in most staple food crops.
@uknowispeaksense - I watched the video you linked (renewable energy study, U of Melb) and 'unspammed' your 2nd reference. It's nice to see a well-worded and polite response from an obviously smart person - but beware of being 'brain-proud'. A true scientist (like my favorite, Richard Feynman) will always challenge beliefs, including their own - continuously based on the search for truth. Your request for references can be addressed in a tedious fashion that will bore everyone to tears, (cont..)
(... cont) or I can simply point out that you are being a little facetious and trying on the old "baffle 'em with bullshit" thing. Did you actually do the research I suggested in the video description? If you did, then you would know with crystal clarity, that all 'greenhouse gases' (water vapour being the greatest in vol) and all 'poisonous, polluting gases' are used as food at the beginning of the food-chain. It HAS to be so, or our atmosphere would not be 80% N and 20% O2 with traces of H2O.
@whitehorse1959 I don't need to 'do the research' in the manner you suggested and i never would. I never use Wikipedia for anything and the only thing I use google for is anyhting other than scientific facts. I only use scientific databases like Ebscohost, Sciencedirect, CAB etc. I don't need a history lesson either on the history or chemistry of this planet's atmosphere. I am very familiar with it. Also as an ecologist and plant physiologist I don't need to 'baffle with bullshit'.
@uknowispeaksense - I see. So you don't need this, and you don't need that. You give yourself a couple of labels - 'ologist this, and 'ologist that, and that's all you've got? You're a preening peacock only? You sound very much like a politician (Al Gore) rather than a scientist. Wheres your science mate? A real scientist like Richard Feynman would be disgusted with you. Before you bother to reply again, please think through what you really want to say - then say it simply sir. No BS please.
There's some science for you, mate. If I didn't sound scientific enough for you earlier, its because you're citing of Wiki and using google for your scientific info led me to believe I was talking to someone unscientific. Clearly you must be the new breed of scientist so sorry about that.
@uknowispeaksense - There you go again, being opaque, elusive and dodgy. Flinging mud at Wikipedia and Google, like you have 'special knowledge' beyond the World Wide Web. If those references mean anything useful, lay them out for all to see. If you can't or won't spell it out in simple plain English, then I must call you out for being political, non-scientific and a blow-hard.
@whitehorse1959 Look up the references and read them. Nothing elusive about it. If you don't know what a DOI is then use your google and look that up too. But in short, what those scientific papers say is that elevated CO2 in our warming world can actually be problematic for food-supplies, reducing protein levels in various grains, affecting fertility in others and a myriad of other effects, too many to mention in this short space. I have provided refs and spelt it out simply enough for you.
@whitehorse1959 cont... and as for 'special knowledge', what sort of crap are you talking about. Wikipedia and Google are great if you want general information that is not necessarily scientific and certainly has no guarantee that it is valid as it isn't peer-reviewed. Anyone can contribute anything to Wikipedia. There is no academic standard to be met and certainly no checks that the info posted to it is accurate. Googling a scientific subject inevitably produces a lot of blogsites...
@whitehorse1959 whose authors, like the contributors to Wiki may not have any academic credentials whatsoever and in many cases, particularly when discussing climate change are funded by oil money either directly or indirectly through 'global thinktanks' like the Marshall Institute or even worse by loony rightwing creationist groups. If that is my 'special knowledge' then feel fee to absorb it. Now, since you are the one rabbiting on about CO2 being good prove to me you aren't a blowhard. Refs?
@uknowispeaksense - Well, thank you for finally getting real, I appreciate it. I prefer to get along with all my brothers and sisters on this little mote of dust, caught in a sunbeam, spinning through time and space. I can't blame people who study hard for decades, for being proud of their achievements and hard work, but quite often, they get caught up in it all, and then fail to see the forest for all the zillions of pine-needles. Work with me here for a little bit, answer me some simple Q's.
(... cont ) First it is my assertion that every form of life is either producing CO2, or using it, or sometimes both. I point out the CO2 is two-thirds oxygen and one-third a main component of protein / fat / oil / sugar / starch / carbohydrate - in other words, life itself. More CO2 = more life. For the food-chain to START, CO2 is REQUIRED. Water, sunlight + CO2 = basic plant requirements. So where does CO2 become a 'black balloon' poison gas? I call that 'nonsense propaganda' (cont... )
(... cont ) I further assert that life on Earth is highly adaptable and that a warmer greener planet would not be nearly as bad as a colder, more snow-bound planet. Agree? I further assert that no matter what Australia decides to do with carbon taxes, the mathematics of it all means a totally negligible result in the grand scheme of things. Agree? I also assert that if a 'runaway CO2 event' were possible, it would have happened already due to forest fires and volcanic action alone. Agree?
( ... cont ) Until I get a convincing explanation as to why microbial terra-forming of the biosphere suddenly ceased (it continues to this minute) - then for the life of me, I cannot understand how any *honest* scientist can claim that there is a real problem that requires urgent action. It's a lie. The truth is that all 'pollution' is both local and temporary, which is why we continue to have both record snow-storms around the world - and clean air to breathe. ( cont... )
(... cont ) So why all the commotion about CO2? Well, that's just human nature, and natural selection, isn't it? We tend to see danger - even where none exists, and we usually over-react to the perceived threat. But that carries survival value when the threat is real, and we are the resultant offspring of the survivors to real threats. We'll get a carbon tax. Some will get rich from it (Al Gore anyone?) In the long run it will turn out that it was all mass-hysteria. I shrug. People are crazy.
@whitehorse1959 the evidence has been accrueing for 20 odd years. if there is any hysteria its the denialists. have you looked at what the scientists are saying and the actual empirical evidence. Do so before you declare it crazy and you'll understand why something should be done about it. Its you guys read herrings about doomsday prophesies, its just humans about polluting the world.
@Oddessuss - Thanks for taking an interest Oddy. Now if you can look beyond the last "20 odd years" and ask yourself about, say, the 20 million odd years before that - start with a clean, fresh perspective, then you will start to wake up to the political, voodoo-science, G.W. scam. Can we humans change the Earths climate in any substantial way? Nope. Sorry, we are not powerful enough to counter the natural forces that really do affect our climate. Lucky for us I'd say! People are crazy.
@whitehorse1959 Really? Humans can't affect nature? Do you realize that when oxygen first showed up in the atmosphere that it was poisonous to the existing life forms of the day? What life forms do you say? Microbes! And you say clearing forests as much as we have, doubling our use of oil every 20 years over the past 100 years (that means we use more oil in the most recent 20 years than all the oil used in the previous history!)...cannot make a difference? How much oil do you think we can burn
@salsalover69laters In your mind, how much CO2 in the atmosphere can we add before we make a difference? Is it until it's 3%, 21%, 50%, 100%? Research wiki page "Carbon Dioxide in Earths Atmosphere". A fact that may astound you: "Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities." LOL
@whitehorse1959 Exactly 20 million odd years of fossil fuels dumped into the atmosphere in the matter of years hmmm. Yep there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, but is the RATE OF CHANGE of the warming influence which is the problem and not the actual level. All I'm asking is to take a look at the science, the empirical evidence, what trained scientists in the field are saying OBJECTIVELY on the topic, (not media or Pollies). Or do you simply not understand the science?
There is an alternative to the carbon tax that will reduce emissions, create 10's of 000's of jobs and reduce the average electricity bill to $8/ week. Don't believe me? watch?v=qImNRuV4G0Q
Malcom Turnbull is by far the best politician the Coalition has. I don't know what they were thinking going into an Election under Tony Abbott. That opportunity is now long gone! No one really likes Julia Gillard, she only won by default!
@73XR673 - Yeah, agreed. My pick would be Joe Hockey at this point. Tony Abbott is too much of a woose to inspire confidence. I've listened to Joe Hockey on talk-back radio and I like the way he thinks. Is it too much to ask for honest government?
Oh no a tax on carbon! This will be the end of the world!!! People said the same thing about the GST and the removal of tarrifs amongst other economic reforms. Do it Julia and stick it to the proles.
you steal from the government. you go to jail for fraud. you steal from australian tax payers. you get into power. Julia Guillard, we trusted you! you are a liar, you are a complete moron who thought australian's would sit back and watch our: -Fuel Go Up -Grocery Prices Go Up -Our Daily Living Go Up. Your the most hated woman in Australia. I'll Give you 1 guess why. TAKE THE TAX AWAY OR GTFO
@BJs4MePlz You have a lot emotion there mate. Tell me, what do you think we should do to combat climate change, or are you just another ignorant climate change denier?
@BJs4MePlz Yep, except science is about small amounts, and small amounts contribute to global warming dickhead. Basic science, small concentration of co2 still leads to warming. This is a strawman fallacy and obviously you don't know your science. I have done a shit load more research than you obviously have. What you do, read a climate deniers website. most percentages pulled out of your arses were quote mined from scientific studies that actually SUPPORT anthropogenic climate change.
@Oddessuss the climate changes whether humans are here or not idiot.
putting a price on carbon does nothing but put money into the governments pockets.
and takes away from the workers. ie. me, i'm a first year apprentice, and i'll be damned if i have to pay $2 a litre for fuel and heaps more for groceries from this ginger who thinks she can lie to australia.
@BJs4MePlz You think Julia is a liar ...fair enough, you don't think carbon tax is a good economic idea ...fair enough. You don't support it because you don't think climate change is being influenced by humans...pull your head out of your arse, look up the climate science journals and see what the fucking scientists are saying OBJECTIVELY from data obtained by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. No political agendas, just empirical evidence. There should be bipartisanship on this issue.
@Oddessuss ....... you are funny ....... the scientists who say that they belief this crap get lots of money ....... the method that they use is not very scientific and the frequency of errors in their predictions are becoming alarmingly frequent. The worst part is when journalists who have no scientific background BLAH BLAH BLAH their opinion as if it is fact.
@LABORISTOXIC So like thousands of climate scientists are getting paid off by who? You know who has the money and power to pay people . i dunno, maybe the FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. You have ZERO evidence of this. It goes agianst the scientific method and clearly you don't know how science works. Scientific journals take years of scruntiny to be written, but your willing to accept the word of shock jocks. Seriously you've been so conned mate. forget journos and pollies, look at the EVIDENCE
@LABORISTOXIC But i doubt you have ever looked at a scientific journal in your life, in fact, I'd argue you simply have a antipathy to science in general. Go and repeal gravity you scientific illiterate.
@LABORISTOXIC There is a reason that the majority of climate scientists thing that there is antropogenic climate change. Its not their political background, many right wing parties around the world agree with the science, like the Tories in UK, its not because of money or funding, in fact many big businesses are WAITING for a carbon pollution price because they know its inevitable. The reason is simple, the evidence for it is very strong. its basic science, co2 = greenhouse gas =warming
@Oddessuss ...... then why did the earth cool between 1940 -1970 and 2000-2009?? I doubt that you even understand science. Do you realise that the only way we can feed ourselves is because the world is warmer than it was 20-years ago. In 1970 climate scientists were worried about mass starvation because if the trend continued it would dramatically impact on wheat production in Canada and Russia!!!
@LABORISTOXIC um, seriously you think because there are periods of cooling that in the background putting TONNES UPON TONNES OF POLLUTION IN THE AIR will do nothing. There are MANY factors effecting climate, not JUST C02, many of these are in cycles, like the Earths orbit, and solar output fom the sun, both of which have oscillating behaviour. The overall recent trend is dramatically upwards. Learn some science you scientific illiterate. Now your argueing that its a good thing? I guess I won
@Oddessuss ....... What are you talking about??? Your statement 'CO2 = Greenhouse Gas = Warming' is incorrect and you agreed with me. Global cooling and global warming are mainly influenced by a big thermonuclear reaction that is occurring at the centre of our solar system ..... also volcanos and asteroids. This upward trend has been happening for 15,000 years, the rate of change that was seen in the 1990's is similar to what was experienced throughout the 19th century. You're so dumb!!!
@LABORISTOXIC Whoa you've been fed a lot of misinformation. The energy from the sun fluctuates correct, but its but ONE factor in influencing climate change, and one fairly well understood, as is ellipticity of the Earths orbit. You increase cO2 and you increase greenhouse effect THIS IS COMMON SCIENCE, how you say its not is well blatantly ignorant. Again with asteroids and volcanoes, can't do much about that, we CAN do a lot about influencing our own influence. Your head is in the sand mate
@Oddessuss Where is the misinformation?!?!? YOU ARE AGREEING WITH ME!!! But the impact of CO2 on Climate is negligible when compare with the other factors, which is why we had a cooling period between 2000 - 2009. IT IS NOT A DRIVING FACTOR!!! Historically CO2 increases in the atmosphere lags behind temperature increases. You are ignorant and simply regurgitate this common science, which is not real science.
@LABORISTOXIC What misinformation ... perhaps the one where you repeatably say that the effect of c02 is negligable ... what scientific reports do you have to support this? I can very easily show you that reports that ellipticity and the solar pattern are responsible for the recent cooling, and the scary thing is that it didn't cool as much as it should, because hey, theres this GLOBAL WARMING TREND going on in the background. Your like those guys who say look snow, therefore warming is wrong
@Oddessuss LISTEN STUPID!!!! Go over the global trends pertaining to global warming ....... yes it has happened before ....... like between 0AD and 600AD ...... but even before that!!! CO2 increases after temperature increases. All you have to do is look!!!!
@LABORISTOXIC Name the specific scientific study or STFU. I reckon your just rephasing some cliamte deniers webpage, if you actually look into the specifics you would find that you are SIMPLY MISREPRESENTING THE DATA AND QUOTE MINING. Previous interglacial periods show CO2 lagging true, but the MECHANISMS FOR THOSE CLIMATE EVENTS ARE DIFFERENT. no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet. You are intolerably ignorant.
@LABORISTOXIC look up "Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming " see your arguement debunked, now SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU MORON
@Oddessuss Meanwhile while that idiot Rudd and Wong were at Copenhagen I was building infrastructure in the Sth Pacific that collected, stored and reclaimed rainwater, used this water in a toilet facility, then treated the toilet wastewater and irrigated it ........... ALL RUN ON SOLAR ENERGY!!! I am so very, very, very intelligent.
@LABORISTOXIC "CO2 increases after temperature increases"
When I raise the temperature of water to 100 C it starts to boil immediately. The water does not wait 800 years before it starts to boil. In the same way if I raise the temperature of a bucket of water by 1 degree it will start to degas immediately. The carbon dioxide does not wait 800 years before it starts to degas. We do not say that mercury expands after temperature increases as they are coincident.
@LABORISTOXIC Did A little bit of research into your misrepresentation of science, and you know what, it was created by USA Republican Congressman Joe Barton. NOT a scientist, NOT reading the data properly and a total misrepresentation of the initial Science Journal Article.
WHAT THE ACTUAL SCIENCE SAYS
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. Now eat your words, stop trtying to argue science because your losing on that front.
@Oddessuss SORRY IDIOT ........ I HAVE A DEGREE IN SCIENCE ...... 23-years post graduate experience which includes time in mining and environmental systems. As stated I lived/employed in Africa ..... people paid me to fly to and work in Africa. I was an environmental consultant for over 5-years and spent the last five years flying around Australia and South Pacific building environmental systems. This is real!!! REAL!!!! I am very, very, very intelligent!!!!
@LABORISTOXIC Anyone who says stuff like "I am very very very intelligent" but is unable to construct an intelligent argument on a science issue is indeed lacking something. It doesn't matter even if your were a climate scientist yourself, your background only makes it even more complexing that you should know what climate scientists in the field are saying on the issue. You still deny that there is a consensus based on the evidence that humans influence climate, which is staggering.
@Oddessuss - Did you mean 'perplexing' (complexing) ? I'll interject here to point out that scientists do NOT rely on "consensus" - that thinking is POLITICAL. Scientists rely on FACTS that can be proven. No matter how many people want to achieve "consensus" (like the ancient consensus that the world is flat and the centre of the universe for example) science looks beyond 'common sense' and delves into the mysterious for real answers. Microbes eat 'pollution' and start the food chain. CO2=LIFE.
@whitehorse1959 yep perplexing. Um yep I am aware that ad populum fallacy does apply, but as I've pointed out numerous times, its consensus AND a growing amount of scientific literature that supports anthropogenic climate change is occuring. I'm yet to be shown a science journal article that has evidence that excess cO2 pollution has no effect on the climate, the best I've seen is that some of the extreme suggestions may be less than first thought. Most conclude that climate change is occuring
@whitehorse1959 cO2 excess will probably lead to more growth of SOME plants, but it will lead to extinction of many others if the rate of change of global warming occurs too quickly I'm no doomsday soothsayer, i don't think it will lead to the end of the world like some of you claim as a strawman fallacy, but pollution reduction and prevention I think is important. this pollute and think about consequences later in a free for all is reckless, there is strong evidence that we are changing climate
@whitehorse1959 I also thinks its absolutely hilarious you are trying to put me in the flat earth camp. Its a piss poor analology, climate scientists are looking at the evidence for what it is and instigating "change" to common beliefs (that is we can pollute the air with no consequences), while it was the flat earthers who were against the change. Whose camp do you really belong to in this analogy, thats right not trusting the new science just like the flat earthers ;)
@Oddessuss - answer me this if you will. Why is the air we breath still so very breathable after all the 'pollution' that has been pumped into it from sources both natural (the vast bulk of it) and human-inititaited, which is also natural, since we are natural beings on the planet? Why haven't we choked to death globally already? Just answer that one question scientifically if you will.
@whitehorse1959 um, red herring. We haven't choked to death therefore climate change science is wrong ...argument FAIL. If you bothered to read any of my posts I've already rebuffed this strawman argument, I'm aware that cO2 exists in the natural biosphere, and there is a carbon cycle. No I'm talking about the rapid reintroduction of fossil fuel carbon that has taken billions of years to accumulate ON TOP of the natural carbon cycle changing the equilibrium. Its the rapid change thats the prob
@Oddessuss - How about if you just answer the question as posed? It's a very straight-forward and simple question with huge ramifications. Talking about red-herrings and straw-men is again, a political tactic. Give me a simple, scientific answer to WHY, and I repeat:- Why is the air we breath still so very breathable after all the 'pollution' that has been pumped into it from sources both natural and from human activity over the centuries? What is the process that clears the air? The science?
@Oddessuss ....... Climate Scientists get paid to say that there is problem ...... NO PROBLEM, NO PAY CHEQUE!!! At the moment Billions of dollars are being spent on studying, what amounts to be, NOTHING. One of the REAL reasons for the hype about climate change is control of the world's resources. The next BIG RESOURCE BOOM is expected to be in Africa ...... and the last this Europe wants is a Africa controling it's own energy. If you wish to be conned ..... that's OK with me.
We have this same debate in the US. It has been proven that the theory of global warming is a scam and was trumped up by Al Gore as a method of raising more money through taxation. I do not like the fact that the EU has taken the lead to push this lie or that Australia is also in line.
i think the greatest travesty is not the lies the politicians tell but the ones the climate scientists tell. compared to politicians scientists have a huge political agenda and a great reason to form group conspiracy to delude the rest of the world. don't believe it when people say science is based on scepticism, it's based on lies.
@sbafa1 the lies the climate scientists tell? wow isnt that convenient, you just say that all the experts on this issue are lying for political gain. never mind the fact that scientists have been investigating this issue for over 100 years. you obviously have no understanding of science or the peer review process if you believe that its all some cover up. then again that has always been the argument of the ignorant, all the actual people who understand this issue must be liars.
haha sorry man, i was trying to troll the fools in this thread like the guy i replied to with that post which caught your attention. not people who actually understand the scientific method of scepticism and peer review. crazy that the international science community can be in consensus that human burning of fossil fuels is significantly changing our climate and yet people prefer to listen to comforting lies of politicians who have no idea what they're talking about.
@sbafa1 true, the most annoying line i have heard is that climate change is this elitist thing because most of the people who accepted it were university graduates. well i dont know about you but I dont know you many scientists who do not have a bachelor degree. you know what else really irritates me? they recycle the same half-truth lies every single time you talk to a 'skeptic' like the 1998 myth etc
@pushinold right global warming was made up by Al Gore is it? that's funny because I'm reading books by scientists in the 70s who were warming about the impacts of climate change. scientific research on the impact of carbon warming the atmosphere goes back to the late 1800s, so dont give me this bullshit that its just been invented because you've never heard of it until politicians did.
who the fuck cares ! its our childrens and grand childrens problem! we dont need to spoon feed them, let them be independent and solve this problem. We dont need another tax.
Can someone please explain to me how paying a tax is going to have any effect on the environment? Surely the environment is not suffering because we a few extra dollars in our pockets, I don't understand. Also, where does the money go? It won't affect businesses as they will simply pass on the costs to the consumer, it just sounds to me like Julia Gillard is trying to fill gaps in her budget.
These politicians are the blood sucking leaches that want the working Australians on the poverty line.Labour has done more harm to the worker than any liberal government with their level playing field and no tariffs
The Daily Reckoning Week in Review – Melbourne, Australia By Nick Hubble
Even worse news is the re-emergence of the carbon price debate. Yes it's the return of the Oxygen Tax (Carbon Dioxide has two Oxygen atoms after all). Of course, not so long ago, a different Prime Minister Gillard stated that 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'.
The former Treasurer, also coincidentally called Wayne Swan, got quite offended at the suggestion a carbon tax was being considered: 'What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.' But now a new Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are in government. And they are hysterical to say the least.
So now the carbon tax is back. We're not sure whether the ideological drive of the Labor Party to ignore its electorate's feedback is commendable or not.
On the one hand, nations do sometimes need tough leaders willing to go against popular opinion. On the other hand, that is pretty contradictory to democracy. Of course, in the present case, the ideology and policy are mistaken. So, the only commendable part in the new Julia Gillard's policy is that the tax is being called a tax, instead of a 'scheme' like last time (ETS and CPRS). And just to be clear, each of these was a tax, no matter what Julia claims.
Surely the Australian voter is sick of hearing about taxes. RSPT, MMRT, ETS, the Flood Levy and now the Carbon tax. How many of these taxes have made it into law?
If you ask Treasurer Wayne Swan, it doesn't really matter. The Australian was interviewing him about the Carbon tax and claims the following was said: 'Mr Swan said "every single dollar" raised under the tax would be returned to assist individuals, households and business who will be impacted.' Think about that for a moment.
the lot is a crock of shit, why has the residents of the Illawarra been informed thier land rates will be on the increase due to the carbon tax WTF it isn't in place yet and surely my house is far from the top 30 pollouters in the country
dosh228 2 months ago
The Carbon Tax is an excellent thing. It is wonderful that it is going to be implemented next year. The issue is, it has been weakened, and watered down so much, that the very existence of it, is almost irrelevant. The reason it has been watered down so much, is because the average guy doesn't actually understand what it is. Therefore, in order to get it accepted by the people, the government has made it so cheap, that compensation is a cop out. It should be, at least, $30/ton.
InsanityIsNormality 4 months ago
this carbon tax is the best thing that could happen to the liberal party and the worse thing to happen to the labor party
russ9356 4 months ago
Wow isn't it already proven that when the temperature of the earth increases co2 increases from the oceans. All that is happening is the sun is going through a natural cycle that does not just effect earth but causes all the other planets in our galaxy to be warmer. Its really simple at the end of the day, scientists just want our society to be what they call a "level one society" one that doesn't rely on fossil fuels.
LZBlackDog71 4 months ago
Julia u are shit, put the carbon tax to a vote, the 20 million odd people or is it now 60 million people in Aus now... due to all the boat people coming in that u said u would stop, the millions of ppl in aus will tell u what u need to do
TJ12Ghost 4 months ago
Utter drivel. like how the uploader chooses to edit out all opposing arguments to his point of view.
protagonist321 4 months ago
Unless your a Fairy Tell believer of the "Adam and Eve" story, you aught to know that carbon is the building blocks of all life on this planet, it was the abundance of carbon on this planet that brings us here today. Global warming is a cyclic phenomena that has existed before humans and will exist after the end of humans too. Plant life thrive on carbon just as we thrive on air. Those people whom truly believe that carbon is destroying the planet seriously need some help. You would have to be
RedTyrian 5 months ago
Volcanoes release 0.15 - 0.30 ppm of carbon
Human activity releases 35ppm of carbon
Reality is that the natural carbon cycle adds and removes carbon, whereas human activity adds without removing.
Carbon pollution isn't simply a political agenda, it's a human agenda.
The monetary loss may be burdensome to families now, but it seems that it is but a small price to pay for sustaining a better environment for every person, animal and plant.
mithilag 5 months ago
@mithilag - you seem like a nice young Aussie, and your comment sounds reasonable, so I'll take the time to reply. When I was 19 or 20 like you, (I'm 50+ now) I too thought that government was generally well-reasoned and honest. I was wrong. Governments are generally mafia-like in the way they run, and the people that populate upper positions. I ask you, if CO2 was 'pollution' (a propaganda-word) and destroying our planet, then WHY are gas and oil wells pumping FULL-ON along with coal exports?
whitehorse1959 5 months ago
.. (cont) Why doesn't Juliar Dullard STOP oil, gas and coal EXPORTS? No need to tax Australians, just STOP the exports. Answer that for me please. Going back to your volcano vs human CO2/greenhouse gas figures, I'm not even going to argue, but take another look at the Chilean Volcano photos again - you know, the one that shut down air-travel in Australia recently? That visible plume across the southern hemishere is much LESS than human activity? I call bull on that. How do volcanoes REMOVE Co2?
whitehorse1959 5 months ago
...(cont 2) The scientific truth is that volcanic gases keep our planet ALIVE, because without volcanoes our oceans and atmosphere wouldn't exist (that's where the H2O comes from - Hydrogen and Oxygen from volcanoes) and the Earth would be an ice-ball. In previous era's the CO2 percentage in the air was EIGHT times higher and there were no deserts. If human activity DOUBLES CO2 it would be a GOOD thing. Wake up people, the CO2 scam is totally a political power/tax grab and nothing more. Sheesh.
whitehorse1959 5 months ago
@whitehorse1959 Thanks for the calm reply, but I'm afraid you don't understand my point of view. I don't believe that the government is fair and honest -- e.g. Julia's lie. I don't support everything any party has to offer; especially not the Labour party. I just care for the environment, that is observably depleting.
We have a bad track-record as humans on this planet to use and abuse the environment. Clearly, it is cheaper to process fossil fuels and thus its prolific use.
mithilag 5 months ago
@mithilag - My reply is best done by George Carlin, bless him. :-D /watch?v=aKV97vsSHo4
whitehorse1959 5 months ago
@mithilag The life-span of CO2 in the atmosphere is not infinity though. I can piss in a lake for a thousand years and it will not cause the world to flood.
Nobody is against a better environment. The fact is that the policy of carbon trading or taxation doesn't even do anything about the perceived problem. Geo-engineering is a much better solution from a cost-benefit analysis.
Either way, AGW is no case of alarm. There are bigger issues. Like starvation and malaria.
Visfen 5 months ago
puppets
dahoff84 5 months ago
What i think is, Instead of holding dumb signs and protesting like pussys were the Government just laughs at.
We should all gather up and start a riot and destroy the place, burn buildings etc etc. Then Ju-liar will think twice about this crap tax. Show your true anger...
lahme4life 6 months ago
listen to this bloke ... and see what the real issues are
search utube for
The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See .. it's basic maths...
ybet1000 6 months ago
The CON is with the name. If you were born the man: Peter-John: Smith, then you become the beneficiary of the trust: PETER JOHN SMITH (Uppercase: Nomina sunt symbola rerum) and if you look at your driver licence or passport, the name is a false twisted name: SMITH PETER JOHN, their name! not your name and you become the trustee, the government then become the beneficiary. That is how you have lost your sovereign rights: Article: (10) Uniform trust code. You gave away your birth-right name. CON
livewireaustralia 6 months ago
your volcano and bushfire claim is old nonsense.. You would knew this if you really had "studied it without bias".
human activity releases about 100times as much as all (irregular) natural sources like volcanoes and bushfires combined.
there is a input-output balance in nature that is usually very balanced, changes happening in tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
in the last ~100years we raised the co2 amount in the atm. already for ~35%
_
"We are being butt-raped"
i understand..
aerobique 6 months ago
@aerobique - Thanks for your comment aerobique, I believe you believe that - it's almost typical of those who would never question government. Government however is populated by well-practiced LIARS & psycho's who have no compunction about the LIES that will line their pockets and grant them more power to control everyone via taxation. Please look up "Agenda 21". Check the other references I've already made here. We are being DUPED by Grade-A arseholes. CO2 = LIFE.
whitehorse1959 6 months ago
aerobique 6 months ago
@aerobique - Okay. So you 'know' we have a problem with CO2 levels do you? Let us investigate solutions to this 'problem' shall we? Why pussy-foot around? Let's encourage our government to STOP mining coal, gas and oil immediately. Forget taxing it, just pass laws to make it illegal in order to save our planet. I have five children that I want to save, not to mention future grand-children. In place of fossil fuels, lets encourage our government to build modern melt-down-proof atomic reactors.
whitehorse1959 6 months ago
@whitehorse1959
_
"Forget taxing it, just pass laws to make it illegal in order to save our planet."
Agree, lets move forward.
_
"In place of fossil fuels, lets encourage our government to build modern melt-down-proof atomic reactors."
umm.. hmm..
As shrt-term "bridge tech"
->FULL focus on "renewable" -clean energy, period.
Get rid of the monopolies, (also nuclear*cough*) Where to leave the trash..? moon? highly self-destructive. BUT "better" than the co2 intensive, geocidal insanity.
aerobique 6 months ago
Where is my free plasma and top box i worked hard complaining to get one.
jazzysnaps 6 months ago
Why shouldn't the 500 biggest polluters pay us to the privilege of polluting our air?
markvansomething 7 months ago
@markvansomething well as a climate change sceptic who has not been brainwashed by all this tax bullshit,if carbon dioxide tax does come ,why should polluters pay the european union for a licence.why not of oyr own goverment then the money stays here..if money goes over seas where is the so-called compo money coming from...china again..still, sorry
dexter69ization 7 months ago
When 'researching' climate change. Be sure to check out references and reliable sources because many sites are misleading and have no evidence. Only believe PEER REVIEWED sources which have valid and reliable evidence to make your judgement on climate change.
jacynm 7 months ago
"10% of any carbon tax goes to the UN towards a global government - an UNELECTED tyranny."
hahahahahahahahahahaha
What the hell?
jobytv 7 months ago
there all liers and dont care about anything except rapeing money of us.
tunastrike11 7 months ago
Its just a politically motivated scam.......Just ask Al Gore.......
And Julia......The worst prime minister in living memory !!!
Changes policys as often as i change my socks.
penfloyd 7 months ago
were fucked
minimoo2000 7 months ago
You people need to study climate change, this is sad...
I used to be sceptical of climate change until I studied it without bias.
randomsrvapps 7 months ago
@randomsrvapps - I studied it without bias. I started at the other end, first believing the government. Look at the science and then the politics, and now I can see the CO2 tax for what it is - a diabolical, wicked hoax. We are being butt-raped by these pretend do-gooders for their self-aggrandising enrichment. We're stuffed mate.
whitehorse1959 7 months ago
Gillard needs a bomb put under her!
Rudd needs to pushed off a cliff!
Brown, the queen of green for once in his life, needs to tell the truth!
MRMILO57 7 months ago
Shame seeing the motor was built via a tafe NSW teacher & funded via the tafe too, yet there was no cash in it for the oil companies so the Govt put a stop to the idea..
dosh228 8 months ago
What about John Howard when he said there will be no GST when the lying Liberal put an 10% Taxed on every thing.
Tony Abbott will be no different.
TheTruckie10 8 months ago
@TheTruckie10 yeh but it worked. Thats the difference.
grijam02 7 months ago
a volcanic eruption can release more carbon into the atmosphere in one year than what the entire human population has released sinse we have exsited
1st3som 8 months ago
It's not a complex or vexed issue at all!
An "Arsehole" called Al Gore, for the want of a better description, came out with a ridiculous theory 25 years ago. As a way to start a new industry in renewable and recyclable products, by scaring people into thinking that if they didn't tow the line they would all basically die of AGW due to carbon dioxide.
Now the Australian Labor government are trying it on, to pull them out of the debt ridden abyss they now find themselves in!
Beautiful bastardy!
opticalprism 8 months ago
How do we have democracy when I have no say in anything that happens?
Bikertothemax1 8 months ago
. come on people how can we be so arrogant and think we can actually damage earth within 200-500 years ( counting since industrial revolution era)... this rocky planet been here since last 4.5 billion years... and gone through many climate changes..Just remember just a tiny solar change can bring all humanity to halt ... but hey there are people who still believes world was created 1000s of years ago within a week by god..lmao ...
GriffinnoFamily 9 months ago
10% of any carbon tax goes to the UN towards a global government - an UNELECTED tyranny. If you don't know about the United Nations dreadful record, time you did some research. Gillards strings are being pulled by the likes of UN socialopaths, Obama and Rudd, and that's why she lied. These individuals all want cushy positions within the ever more powerful United Nations, and to hell with whatever pain it delivers to the common debt-cattle. People, be awake to the lies.
whitehorse1959 9 months ago
Comment removed
MRMILO57 9 months ago
The question about the birthday cake is a rhetorical one...the fact is everything will cost more....the question that is not answered is exactly how this money will be used to implement green initiatives ie drive down emission chiefly through alternative power generation...which we have not heard none of.
danielmy08 9 months ago
punch and judy show
Fazzpower 9 months ago
you are so off the mark it's not funny. I'm a scientist by the way and know the research.
rtaubman 9 months ago
A global 'pollution crisis' can only be solved by... wait for it... A Global Government (U.N.) So create a seemingly plausible global crisis in peoples minds, and tahdah! Global 'pollution' taxes for a global government. Next step is a global serfdom under technological control of all activity. A Prison Planet. You want that? Watch this... /watch?v=svflvNWo2yM&feature=related and think about it.
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
Why couldn't we steer away from big government, retain sovereignty, build a safe version of nuclear industry, and go geothermal, and solar, while shutting down the burning of fossil fuels as new power comes online? Forget about a global government (too tyrannical) and start promoting a fossil-fuel-free transport system wherever possible. We don't need to follow a U.N. plan for a Global CO2 Tax at all - we could get faster, safer, results with good Aussie governmental policy instead Get Labor OUT
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
Sorry ppl, I ran out of patience with Oddy and blocked him, he just wouldn't talk science and wanted to be mildly abusive instead. I'm not at all angry with him, I understand his mindset, but I can't be bothered with it. Hey, I watched "Crude" tonight, and it was quite good, raising some very important issues about our dependence on crude oil, and that peak oil most probably has already occurred. Some would solve the problems with 'oil wars' and de-population (U.N. anyone?)
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
Why do you guys only sprout links that back up your argument (I fail to see any comments from you about what in the wikipedia articles prove a 'conspiracy' by the australian government, but I state a perfectly logical argument and you can't answer it with a decent response? Is radiation natural? Yes, we have very small amounts of background radiation. Is everyone in Japan worried about radiation leaks atm? Yes..but why as radiation is normal isn't it? What are we worried about? Pollution!!!
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
Thanks for commenting SalsaL69... Let's see now, you seem annoyed that anyone would argue against the Chicken Little, Earth becomes Venus II, 'the Polar Bears will Drown' crowd. You cast dispersions upon my intelligence and education. Well I'm sad in my pants that you would stoop to name-calling, that's what rabid politicians do, not trained scientists. Shame on you SalsaL69. You also think that Wikipedia is somehow not as good as any paper book. How so? I'm certain that if you open (cont.)
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
(..cont) one of your paper science books (do you really have any?) and compare any science topic to the equivalent that you find in Wikipedia, you'll be amazed at how up-to-date, informed and complete the Wikipedia entries are, with references to REAL books and by real scientists. So where do you get that viewpoint from? You also try to bring 'big oil bastards' into the argument. Don't try to throw me into a camp, to pigeonhole me as some paid hack, that again is pure politics. (cont 3-s.)
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
(.. cont 3-s) So please, put your science cap on, forget the Money-n-Power-Hungry crowd (big biz and big gov) and do some more thinking. Einstein was a very famous scientist because he did not get bogged down with a million small details, he saw the bigger picture, and described it with maths. We can do the same. It's okay Salsa, Wikipedia is safe to read, honest! I highly recommend further study. Try reading about volcanoes, their numbers, effect on the planet, how new ones form, (cont 4-s.)
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
(..cont 4-s) and how all that gas and ash doesn't actually harm the planet. How many megatons of TNT would it take to simulate the Icelandic volcano? How about Mount St. Helens? What happened in the Earths past history when even bigger events took place in Yellowstone or here in Australia at Mt. Warning, NSW? They were super-calderas, and yet the Earth didn't get snuffed out with CO2. I'm telling you clearly, the CO2 scare is a LIE. Don't even get me started on bush-fires around the planet.(end)
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
..Actually SalsaL69, I doubt that you will do further reading all by yourself, so I'll do it for you. "The primary source of carbon/CO2 is out-gassing from the Earth's interior at mid-ocean ridges, hot-spot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs. Much of the CO2 released at subduction zones is derived from the metamorphism of carbonate rocks sub-ducting with the ocean crust". Sub-sea black and white 'smokers', and sub-sea oil-field leaks add even more. But the air is breathable? Why?
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
So SalsaL69 (and all who read this) please look past your prejudices and conditioning, and ask yourself honestly to follow up with a clear mind on answering those simple questions. Do you trust big government or big business to do your thinking for you? Do you understand what sheeple are? Are your beliefs based on trust and faith with any group, or are you capable of individual, empirical observation of the world around you? I assert that if CO2 was EVER a problem, we'd not be here to discuss it
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 You guys are all the same...you say big business and government are promoting renewable energies as a 'conspiracy', however you are asserting that oil, coal, pharmaceuticals, chemical and plastics companies are not into making money? They are the biggest industries in the world. Do you expect people to believe that oil companies don't want to sell oil? And you criticize me for making a personal attack, but call the government Kremlin? You are a hypocrite and scare monger.
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 Do you realize that the ash from volcanoes actually reflects a lot of radiation? Do you realise that volcanoes and bushfires have been going on for thousands of years, whereas burning of fossil fuels by humans has only gone on for a few hundred (and I'm not talking about 100,000 people 10,000 years ago burning herth fires? Do you have any proof that both bushfires and volcanoes have increased over the past 200 or even 40 years? And who said the Earth would get snuffed out?
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
If you want to talk about maths I haven't got time to school you so please watch this video and come back to me. I look forward to any comments on the maths discussed in basic detail. This is a perfect video for understanding the 'bigger picture'. I hope it will show you and at the very least those people who are not scientific and may be persuaded by your deluded theories. BTW big oil and coal are not power hungry? LOL
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 I have many scientific books actually. I learned geology from a climate change skeptic! As well as biology, ecology, physics, maths, inorganic, organic and physical chemistry, sociology, microbiology, solid liquid and gas waste management (i.e. pollution control), chemical engineering process control, water and wastewater treatment. I studied polymer engineering for 3yrs and have a degree in both Chemical & Environmental engineering. I have worked in the oil & water industries...
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 Did you look up the wiki page I suggested "climate change denial"...hahahahaha. No comment eh? LOL
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
For anyone who is considering looking up wikipedia for whitehorses links and then listening to his bullshit...also look up "climate change denial". You don't have to be a scientist or engineer or climatologist to understand where he is coming from!!!
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
how you feel afterwards...you big oil bastards use the most ridiculous unscientific arguments that unfortunately sway a lot of unscientific people. Try lowering your body temperature a few degrees or raise it a few degrees, see how well you survive in that state...all life on this planet exists in a balance...too little sun (or CO2, oxygen, water, etc, etc, etc) or too much has effects. Try giving a plant too much or too little of any of these and see how they go? Grow up...and read a f'n book
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
What rubbish whitehorse1959..."carbon is needed for life so therefore CO2 is not a problem". Anything can become pollution in the right amounts...water is also essential for life...our bodies are made up somewhere around 60% from water...but try someone holding you under water for 5 minutes and see how happy you are afterwards...try sitting in a room with 100% oxygen for a while rather than 21% and see how well you do then...try eating oil (made up mostly from Carbon and Hydrogen...) and see...
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
There is a viable alternative to a carbon tax that will reduce emissions, create tens of thousands of long term jobs and result in an electricity bill of only $8 per week for the average Australian household. watch?v=qImNRuV4G0Q
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
why carbon tax?
" Alex Jones - The Carbon Tax Deception "
phatpleasure 11 months ago
That guy got OWNED.
phatpleasure 11 months ago 2
Malcolm Turnball is a waste of space all with Piers Akerman & his newspaper belongs in the compost bin.
martbd 11 months ago
There is an alternative to the carbon tax and it will reduce emissions, create tens of thousands of jobs and result in a weekly power bill of only $8 per week. Don't believe me? watch?v=qImNRuV4G0Q
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
Look, I understand how citizens of our pleasant nation of Australia can have concerns about the future, and want everyone else to be concerned and 'take action'. I'm saying that we need to start from a basis of scientific and political honesty and quit with the lies and fraud. There are plenty of advancements we can make with our energy supplies, and a good government will gently encourage the right changes without lying and without adding complexity to our taxation system.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
But the thing is this - ozone is O3 - just oxygen in a different shaped molecule - created, temporarily, by UV rays from the sun. It breaks down naturally over time, back to O2, but while it is in O3 (ozone) form, it BLOCKS further UV rays. The reason it is lacking over the north and south poles, is simply because the UV activity there is much lower than at the equator. Very simple science. Notice the scare disappeared after the DuPont Corp renewed their patent on refrigerant gas. Google that!
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
"CO2 is GREEN" means that if you want a greener planet, you need more CO2, not less. Try growing any plants in a greenhouse while removing any trace of CO2 - you'll get no growth. Pump extra CO2 into the greenhouse atmosphere and you will accelerate growth. I was born in 1959, I know the 1970's well, and at that time, the scare was a return of the ice-age! Then the ozone layer was discovered, and they found holes in it at the poles! OMG, WTF!!! we were all going to die from UV rays.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 this sounds like bull shit
martbd 11 months ago
I'm the uploader of this video. I'm pleased to see comments/debate, but please be gentlemanly about it. There is no need for vulgarity, it achieves the opposite of what you want. I'm clearly anti-'climate alarmist' and would like our politicians to be HONEST. It wasn't too long ago that I was actually on the 'other side' and concerned about 'Global Warming'. But a close inspection of the facts, F A C T S, clearly show the whole scare to be an empty nonsense. CO2 is LIFE ITSELF. CO2 is GREEN.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 references please? I am particularly interested to know your feelings about extrapolating greenhouse, controlled experiments to the outside world? I'm asking because you do not appear to understand that controlled greenhouse experiments with elevated CO2 do not examine changes in nitrification, water regimes, leaf chemistry and its effects on pests and diseases etc etc etc etc etc etc? Field experiments reveal that elevated CO2 reduces yield in most staple food crops.
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense - I watched the video you linked (renewable energy study, U of Melb) and 'unspammed' your 2nd reference. It's nice to see a well-worded and polite response from an obviously smart person - but beware of being 'brain-proud'. A true scientist (like my favorite, Richard Feynman) will always challenge beliefs, including their own - continuously based on the search for truth. Your request for references can be addressed in a tedious fashion that will bore everyone to tears, (cont..)
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
(... cont) or I can simply point out that you are being a little facetious and trying on the old "baffle 'em with bullshit" thing. Did you actually do the research I suggested in the video description? If you did, then you would know with crystal clarity, that all 'greenhouse gases' (water vapour being the greatest in vol) and all 'poisonous, polluting gases' are used as food at the beginning of the food-chain. It HAS to be so, or our atmosphere would not be 80% N and 20% O2 with traces of H2O.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 I don't need to 'do the research' in the manner you suggested and i never would. I never use Wikipedia for anything and the only thing I use google for is anyhting other than scientific facts. I only use scientific databases like Ebscohost, Sciencedirect, CAB etc. I don't need a history lesson either on the history or chemistry of this planet's atmosphere. I am very familiar with it. Also as an ecologist and plant physiologist I don't need to 'baffle with bullshit'.
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense - I see. So you don't need this, and you don't need that. You give yourself a couple of labels - 'ologist this, and 'ologist that, and that's all you've got? You're a preening peacock only? You sound very much like a politician (Al Gore) rather than a scientist. Wheres your science mate? A real scientist like Richard Feynman would be disgusted with you. Before you bother to reply again, please think through what you really want to say - then say it simply sir. No BS please.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02500.x, doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp170, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x, DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00238.x, DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00230.x
There's some science for you, mate. If I didn't sound scientific enough for you earlier, its because you're citing of Wiki and using google for your scientific info led me to believe I was talking to someone unscientific. Clearly you must be the new breed of scientist so sorry about that.
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense - There you go again, being opaque, elusive and dodgy. Flinging mud at Wikipedia and Google, like you have 'special knowledge' beyond the World Wide Web. If those references mean anything useful, lay them out for all to see. If you can't or won't spell it out in simple plain English, then I must call you out for being political, non-scientific and a blow-hard.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 Look up the references and read them. Nothing elusive about it. If you don't know what a DOI is then use your google and look that up too. But in short, what those scientific papers say is that elevated CO2 in our warming world can actually be problematic for food-supplies, reducing protein levels in various grains, affecting fertility in others and a myriad of other effects, too many to mention in this short space. I have provided refs and spelt it out simply enough for you.
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 cont... and as for 'special knowledge', what sort of crap are you talking about. Wikipedia and Google are great if you want general information that is not necessarily scientific and certainly has no guarantee that it is valid as it isn't peer-reviewed. Anyone can contribute anything to Wikipedia. There is no academic standard to be met and certainly no checks that the info posted to it is accurate. Googling a scientific subject inevitably produces a lot of blogsites...
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 whose authors, like the contributors to Wiki may not have any academic credentials whatsoever and in many cases, particularly when discussing climate change are funded by oil money either directly or indirectly through 'global thinktanks' like the Marshall Institute or even worse by loony rightwing creationist groups. If that is my 'special knowledge' then feel fee to absorb it. Now, since you are the one rabbiting on about CO2 being good prove to me you aren't a blowhard. Refs?
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
@uknowispeaksense - Well, thank you for finally getting real, I appreciate it. I prefer to get along with all my brothers and sisters on this little mote of dust, caught in a sunbeam, spinning through time and space. I can't blame people who study hard for decades, for being proud of their achievements and hard work, but quite often, they get caught up in it all, and then fail to see the forest for all the zillions of pine-needles. Work with me here for a little bit, answer me some simple Q's.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
(... cont ) First it is my assertion that every form of life is either producing CO2, or using it, or sometimes both. I point out the CO2 is two-thirds oxygen and one-third a main component of protein / fat / oil / sugar / starch / carbohydrate - in other words, life itself. More CO2 = more life. For the food-chain to START, CO2 is REQUIRED. Water, sunlight + CO2 = basic plant requirements. So where does CO2 become a 'black balloon' poison gas? I call that 'nonsense propaganda' (cont... )
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
(... cont ) I further assert that life on Earth is highly adaptable and that a warmer greener planet would not be nearly as bad as a colder, more snow-bound planet. Agree? I further assert that no matter what Australia decides to do with carbon taxes, the mathematics of it all means a totally negligible result in the grand scheme of things. Agree? I also assert that if a 'runaway CO2 event' were possible, it would have happened already due to forest fires and volcanic action alone. Agree?
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
( ... cont ) Until I get a convincing explanation as to why microbial terra-forming of the biosphere suddenly ceased (it continues to this minute) - then for the life of me, I cannot understand how any *honest* scientist can claim that there is a real problem that requires urgent action. It's a lie. The truth is that all 'pollution' is both local and temporary, which is why we continue to have both record snow-storms around the world - and clean air to breathe. ( cont... )
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
(... cont ) So why all the commotion about CO2? Well, that's just human nature, and natural selection, isn't it? We tend to see danger - even where none exists, and we usually over-react to the perceived threat. But that carries survival value when the threat is real, and we are the resultant offspring of the survivors to real threats. We'll get a carbon tax. Some will get rich from it (Al Gore anyone?) In the long run it will turn out that it was all mass-hysteria. I shrug. People are crazy.
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
@whitehorse1959 the evidence has been accrueing for 20 odd years. if there is any hysteria its the denialists. have you looked at what the scientists are saying and the actual empirical evidence. Do so before you declare it crazy and you'll understand why something should be done about it. Its you guys read herrings about doomsday prophesies, its just humans about polluting the world.
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss - Thanks for taking an interest Oddy. Now if you can look beyond the last "20 odd years" and ask yourself about, say, the 20 million odd years before that - start with a clean, fresh perspective, then you will start to wake up to the political, voodoo-science, G.W. scam. Can we humans change the Earths climate in any substantial way? Nope. Sorry, we are not powerful enough to counter the natural forces that really do affect our climate. Lucky for us I'd say! People are crazy.
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 Really? Humans can't affect nature? Do you realize that when oxygen first showed up in the atmosphere that it was poisonous to the existing life forms of the day? What life forms do you say? Microbes! And you say clearing forests as much as we have, doubling our use of oil every 20 years over the past 100 years (that means we use more oil in the most recent 20 years than all the oil used in the previous history!)...cannot make a difference? How much oil do you think we can burn
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
@salsalover69laters In your mind, how much CO2 in the atmosphere can we add before we make a difference? Is it until it's 3%, 21%, 50%, 100%? Research wiki page "Carbon Dioxide in Earths Atmosphere". A fact that may astound you: "Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities." LOL
salsalover69laters 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 Exactly 20 million odd years of fossil fuels dumped into the atmosphere in the matter of years hmmm. Yep there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, but is the RATE OF CHANGE of the warming influence which is the problem and not the actual level. All I'm asking is to take a look at the science, the empirical evidence, what trained scientists in the field are saying OBJECTIVELY on the topic, (not media or Pollies). Or do you simply not understand the science?
Oddessuss 10 months ago
There is an alternative to the carbon tax that will reduce emissions, create 10's of 000's of jobs and reduce the average electricity bill to $8/ week. Don't believe me? watch?v=qImNRuV4G0Q
uknowispeaksense 11 months ago
Malcom Turnbull is by far the best politician the Coalition has. I don't know what they were thinking going into an Election under Tony Abbott. That opportunity is now long gone! No one really likes Julia Gillard, she only won by default!
73XR673 11 months ago
@73XR673 - Yeah, agreed. My pick would be Joe Hockey at this point. Tony Abbott is too much of a woose to inspire confidence. I've listened to Joe Hockey on talk-back radio and I like the way he thinks. Is it too much to ask for honest government?
whitehorse1959 11 months ago
Your comments in white text overlaying are quite annoying. We really don't need your attempts to translate what they are saying.
pixelwarrior 11 months ago
Oh no a tax on carbon! This will be the end of the world!!! People said the same thing about the GST and the removal of tarrifs amongst other economic reforms. Do it Julia and stick it to the proles.
beamla 11 months ago
I can't believe that people would rather trust columnists like Piers Akerman on climate change as opposed to scientists.
beamla 11 months ago 2
BJs4MePlz 11 months ago 2
@BJs4MePlz You have a lot emotion there mate. Tell me, what do you think we should do to combat climate change, or are you just another ignorant climate change denier?
Oddessuss 11 months ago
@Oddessuss humans have 0.001% effect on the worlds carbon emmisions.
do a little research before your preach your S*@t on me.
BJs4MePlz 11 months ago 2
@BJs4MePlz Yep, except science is about small amounts, and small amounts contribute to global warming dickhead. Basic science, small concentration of co2 still leads to warming. This is a strawman fallacy and obviously you don't know your science. I have done a shit load more research than you obviously have. What you do, read a climate deniers website. most percentages pulled out of your arses were quote mined from scientific studies that actually SUPPORT anthropogenic climate change.
Oddessuss 11 months ago
@Oddessuss the climate changes whether humans are here or not idiot.
putting a price on carbon does nothing but put money into the governments pockets.
and takes away from the workers. ie. me, i'm a first year apprentice, and i'll be damned if i have to pay $2 a litre for fuel and heaps more for groceries from this ginger who thinks she can lie to australia.
BJs4MePlz 11 months ago
@BJs4MePlz You think Julia is a liar ...fair enough, you don't think carbon tax is a good economic idea ...fair enough. You don't support it because you don't think climate change is being influenced by humans...pull your head out of your arse, look up the climate science journals and see what the fucking scientists are saying OBJECTIVELY from data obtained by the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. No political agendas, just empirical evidence. There should be bipartisanship on this issue.
Oddessuss 11 months ago
@Oddessuss ....... you are funny ....... the scientists who say that they belief this crap get lots of money ....... the method that they use is not very scientific and the frequency of errors in their predictions are becoming alarmingly frequent. The worst part is when journalists who have no scientific background BLAH BLAH BLAH their opinion as if it is fact.
LABORISTOXIC 11 months ago 2
@LABORISTOXIC So like thousands of climate scientists are getting paid off by who? You know who has the money and power to pay people . i dunno, maybe the FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. You have ZERO evidence of this. It goes agianst the scientific method and clearly you don't know how science works. Scientific journals take years of scruntiny to be written, but your willing to accept the word of shock jocks. Seriously you've been so conned mate. forget journos and pollies, look at the EVIDENCE
Oddessuss 11 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC But i doubt you have ever looked at a scientific journal in your life, in fact, I'd argue you simply have a antipathy to science in general. Go and repeal gravity you scientific illiterate.
Oddessuss 11 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC There is a reason that the majority of climate scientists thing that there is antropogenic climate change. Its not their political background, many right wing parties around the world agree with the science, like the Tories in UK, its not because of money or funding, in fact many big businesses are WAITING for a carbon pollution price because they know its inevitable. The reason is simple, the evidence for it is very strong. its basic science, co2 = greenhouse gas =warming
Oddessuss 11 months ago
@Oddessuss ...... then why did the earth cool between 1940 -1970 and 2000-2009?? I doubt that you even understand science. Do you realise that the only way we can feed ourselves is because the world is warmer than it was 20-years ago. In 1970 climate scientists were worried about mass starvation because if the trend continued it would dramatically impact on wheat production in Canada and Russia!!!
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC um, seriously you think because there are periods of cooling that in the background putting TONNES UPON TONNES OF POLLUTION IN THE AIR will do nothing. There are MANY factors effecting climate, not JUST C02, many of these are in cycles, like the Earths orbit, and solar output fom the sun, both of which have oscillating behaviour. The overall recent trend is dramatically upwards. Learn some science you scientific illiterate. Now your argueing that its a good thing? I guess I won
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss ....... What are you talking about??? Your statement 'CO2 = Greenhouse Gas = Warming' is incorrect and you agreed with me. Global cooling and global warming are mainly influenced by a big thermonuclear reaction that is occurring at the centre of our solar system ..... also volcanos and asteroids. This upward trend has been happening for 15,000 years, the rate of change that was seen in the 1990's is similar to what was experienced throughout the 19th century. You're so dumb!!!
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC Whoa you've been fed a lot of misinformation. The energy from the sun fluctuates correct, but its but ONE factor in influencing climate change, and one fairly well understood, as is ellipticity of the Earths orbit. You increase cO2 and you increase greenhouse effect THIS IS COMMON SCIENCE, how you say its not is well blatantly ignorant. Again with asteroids and volcanoes, can't do much about that, we CAN do a lot about influencing our own influence. Your head is in the sand mate
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss Where is the misinformation?!?!? YOU ARE AGREEING WITH ME!!! But the impact of CO2 on Climate is negligible when compare with the other factors, which is why we had a cooling period between 2000 - 2009. IT IS NOT A DRIVING FACTOR!!! Historically CO2 increases in the atmosphere lags behind temperature increases. You are ignorant and simply regurgitate this common science, which is not real science.
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC What misinformation ... perhaps the one where you repeatably say that the effect of c02 is negligable ... what scientific reports do you have to support this? I can very easily show you that reports that ellipticity and the solar pattern are responsible for the recent cooling, and the scary thing is that it didn't cool as much as it should, because hey, theres this GLOBAL WARMING TREND going on in the background. Your like those guys who say look snow, therefore warming is wrong
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss LISTEN STUPID!!!! Go over the global trends pertaining to global warming ....... yes it has happened before ....... like between 0AD and 600AD ...... but even before that!!! CO2 increases after temperature increases. All you have to do is look!!!!
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC Name the specific scientific study or STFU. I reckon your just rephasing some cliamte deniers webpage, if you actually look into the specifics you would find that you are SIMPLY MISREPRESENTING THE DATA AND QUOTE MINING. Previous interglacial periods show CO2 lagging true, but the MECHANISMS FOR THOSE CLIMATE EVENTS ARE DIFFERENT. no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet. You are intolerably ignorant.
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC look up "Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming " see your arguement debunked, now SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU MORON
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss Meanwhile while that idiot Rudd and Wong were at Copenhagen I was building infrastructure in the Sth Pacific that collected, stored and reclaimed rainwater, used this water in a toilet facility, then treated the toilet wastewater and irrigated it ........... ALL RUN ON SOLAR ENERGY!!! I am so very, very, very intelligent.
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC "CO2 increases after temperature increases"
When I raise the temperature of water to 100 C it starts to boil immediately. The water does not wait 800 years before it starts to boil. In the same way if I raise the temperature of a bucket of water by 1 degree it will start to degas immediately. The carbon dioxide does not wait 800 years before it starts to degas. We do not say that mercury expands after temperature increases as they are coincident.
RasPesher 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC Did A little bit of research into your misrepresentation of science, and you know what, it was created by USA Republican Congressman Joe Barton. NOT a scientist, NOT reading the data properly and a total misrepresentation of the initial Science Journal Article.
WHAT THE ACTUAL SCIENCE SAYS
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. Now eat your words, stop trtying to argue science because your losing on that front.
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss I do not this that science is your best suit ....... simple regurgitation
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC Better than your complete ignorance of science anyday dude ;)
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss SORRY IDIOT ........ I HAVE A DEGREE IN SCIENCE ...... 23-years post graduate experience which includes time in mining and environmental systems. As stated I lived/employed in Africa ..... people paid me to fly to and work in Africa. I was an environmental consultant for over 5-years and spent the last five years flying around Australia and South Pacific building environmental systems. This is real!!! REAL!!!! I am very, very, very intelligent!!!!
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@Oddessuss Yes my little thorn ........ when people want science ........ they come to me!!!!
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
@LABORISTOXIC Anyone who says stuff like "I am very very very intelligent" but is unable to construct an intelligent argument on a science issue is indeed lacking something. It doesn't matter even if your were a climate scientist yourself, your background only makes it even more complexing that you should know what climate scientists in the field are saying on the issue. You still deny that there is a consensus based on the evidence that humans influence climate, which is staggering.
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss - Did you mean 'perplexing' (complexing) ? I'll interject here to point out that scientists do NOT rely on "consensus" - that thinking is POLITICAL. Scientists rely on FACTS that can be proven. No matter how many people want to achieve "consensus" (like the ancient consensus that the world is flat and the centre of the universe for example) science looks beyond 'common sense' and delves into the mysterious for real answers. Microbes eat 'pollution' and start the food chain. CO2=LIFE.
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 yep perplexing. Um yep I am aware that ad populum fallacy does apply, but as I've pointed out numerous times, its consensus AND a growing amount of scientific literature that supports anthropogenic climate change is occuring. I'm yet to be shown a science journal article that has evidence that excess cO2 pollution has no effect on the climate, the best I've seen is that some of the extreme suggestions may be less than first thought. Most conclude that climate change is occuring
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 cO2 excess will probably lead to more growth of SOME plants, but it will lead to extinction of many others if the rate of change of global warming occurs too quickly I'm no doomsday soothsayer, i don't think it will lead to the end of the world like some of you claim as a strawman fallacy, but pollution reduction and prevention I think is important. this pollute and think about consequences later in a free for all is reckless, there is strong evidence that we are changing climate
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 I also thinks its absolutely hilarious you are trying to put me in the flat earth camp. Its a piss poor analology, climate scientists are looking at the evidence for what it is and instigating "change" to common beliefs (that is we can pollute the air with no consequences), while it was the flat earthers who were against the change. Whose camp do you really belong to in this analogy, thats right not trusting the new science just like the flat earthers ;)
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss - answer me this if you will. Why is the air we breath still so very breathable after all the 'pollution' that has been pumped into it from sources both natural (the vast bulk of it) and human-inititaited, which is also natural, since we are natural beings on the planet? Why haven't we choked to death globally already? Just answer that one question scientifically if you will.
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
@whitehorse1959 um, red herring. We haven't choked to death therefore climate change science is wrong ...argument FAIL. If you bothered to read any of my posts I've already rebuffed this strawman argument, I'm aware that cO2 exists in the natural biosphere, and there is a carbon cycle. No I'm talking about the rapid reintroduction of fossil fuel carbon that has taken billions of years to accumulate ON TOP of the natural carbon cycle changing the equilibrium. Its the rapid change thats the prob
Oddessuss 10 months ago
@Oddessuss - How about if you just answer the question as posed? It's a very straight-forward and simple question with huge ramifications. Talking about red-herrings and straw-men is again, a political tactic. Give me a simple, scientific answer to WHY, and I repeat:- Why is the air we breath still so very breathable after all the 'pollution' that has been pumped into it from sources both natural and from human activity over the centuries? What is the process that clears the air? The science?
whitehorse1959 10 months ago
@Oddessuss ....... Climate Scientists get paid to say that there is problem ...... NO PROBLEM, NO PAY CHEQUE!!! At the moment Billions of dollars are being spent on studying, what amounts to be, NOTHING. One of the REAL reasons for the hype about climate change is control of the world's resources. The next BIG RESOURCE BOOM is expected to be in Africa ...... and the last this Europe wants is a Africa controling it's own energy. If you wish to be conned ..... that's OK with me.
LABORISTOXIC 10 months ago
We have this same debate in the US. It has been proven that the theory of global warming is a scam and was trumped up by Al Gore as a method of raising more money through taxation. I do not like the fact that the EU has taken the lead to push this lie or that Australia is also in line.
pushinold 11 months ago
@pushinold
i think the greatest travesty is not the lies the politicians tell but the ones the climate scientists tell. compared to politicians scientists have a huge political agenda and a great reason to form group conspiracy to delude the rest of the world. don't believe it when people say science is based on scepticism, it's based on lies.
sbafa1 11 months ago
@sbafa1 the lies the climate scientists tell? wow isnt that convenient, you just say that all the experts on this issue are lying for political gain. never mind the fact that scientists have been investigating this issue for over 100 years. you obviously have no understanding of science or the peer review process if you believe that its all some cover up. then again that has always been the argument of the ignorant, all the actual people who understand this issue must be liars.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@AussiePolitics
haha sorry man, i was trying to troll the fools in this thread like the guy i replied to with that post which caught your attention. not people who actually understand the scientific method of scepticism and peer review. crazy that the international science community can be in consensus that human burning of fossil fuels is significantly changing our climate and yet people prefer to listen to comforting lies of politicians who have no idea what they're talking about.
sbafa1 11 months ago
@sbafa1 true, the most annoying line i have heard is that climate change is this elitist thing because most of the people who accepted it were university graduates. well i dont know about you but I dont know you many scientists who do not have a bachelor degree. you know what else really irritates me? they recycle the same half-truth lies every single time you talk to a 'skeptic' like the 1998 myth etc
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
@pushinold right global warming was made up by Al Gore is it? that's funny because I'm reading books by scientists in the 70s who were warming about the impacts of climate change. scientific research on the impact of carbon warming the atmosphere goes back to the late 1800s, so dont give me this bullshit that its just been invented because you've never heard of it until politicians did.
AussiePolitics 11 months ago
who the fuck cares ! its our childrens and grand childrens problem! we dont need to spoon feed them, let them be independent and solve this problem. We dont need another tax.
MsHatetheworld 11 months ago
my lungs emit co2 when i breathe they should put a tax on that too dirty communists!
sbafa1 11 months ago
Can someone please explain to me how paying a tax is going to have any effect on the environment? Surely the environment is not suffering because we a few extra dollars in our pockets, I don't understand. Also, where does the money go? It won't affect businesses as they will simply pass on the costs to the consumer, it just sounds to me like Julia Gillard is trying to fill gaps in her budget.
nosweatjustmyopinion 11 months ago
These politicians are the blood sucking leaches that want the working Australians on the poverty line.Labour has done more harm to the worker than any liberal government with their level playing field and no tariffs
russ9356 11 months ago 2
The Daily Reckoning Week in Review – Melbourne, Australia By Nick Hubble
Even worse news is the re-emergence of the carbon price debate. Yes it's the return of the Oxygen Tax (Carbon Dioxide has two Oxygen atoms after all). Of course, not so long ago, a different Prime Minister Gillard stated that 'there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'.
whitehorse1959 1 year ago
The former Treasurer, also coincidentally called Wayne Swan, got quite offended at the suggestion a carbon tax was being considered: 'What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax.' But now a new Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are in government. And they are hysterical to say the least.
So now the carbon tax is back. We're not sure whether the ideological drive of the Labor Party to ignore its electorate's feedback is commendable or not.
whitehorse1959 1 year ago
On the one hand, nations do sometimes need tough leaders willing to go against popular opinion. On the other hand, that is pretty contradictory to democracy. Of course, in the present case, the ideology and policy are mistaken. So, the only commendable part in the new Julia Gillard's policy is that the tax is being called a tax, instead of a 'scheme' like last time (ETS and CPRS). And just to be clear, each of these was a tax, no matter what Julia claims.
whitehorse1959 1 year ago
Surely the Australian voter is sick of hearing about taxes. RSPT, MMRT, ETS, the Flood Levy and now the Carbon tax. How many of these taxes have made it into law?
If you ask Treasurer Wayne Swan, it doesn't really matter. The Australian was interviewing him about the Carbon tax and claims the following was said: 'Mr Swan said "every single dollar" raised under the tax would be returned to assist individuals, households and business who will be impacted.' Think about that for a moment.
whitehorse1959 1 year ago
And read it again. It must be out of context, or why bother going through the process of taxing in the first place? Oh wait, he is Labor too, right?
And what if the tax affects every Australian? And every BHP customer overseas? Whoa! Mr Swan will be racking up quite a debt.
Outside of Australia, the political class seems to be less obviously stupid.
whitehorse1959 1 year ago
Comments above published in the free online newsletter by Nick Hubble - For Daily Reckoning Australia.
whitehorse1959 1 year ago