Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal, Part 3 - Real World Science

[1000frolly]

Is it warming or cooling?

I can answer this question; it depends on the timescale you look at. 1 year =Cooling. 14 years =Cooling. 33 years =Warming. 300 years = Warming. 1,000 years = Cooling. 1,200 years =Warming. 2,000 years =Cooling. 2,500 years = Warming. 3,300 years =Cooling. 12,000 years = Warming. 125,000 years = Cooling. 350,000 years = Warming. 3,000,000 years = Cooling. 30,000,000 years = Cooling. 65,000,000 years = Cooling. This is the true nature of our climate.

[GalileoMovement]

@1000frolly That is probably the best comment I have seen in this whole debate. Well done!

[sefski88]

'It's called a trace gas because there is bugger all of it!' Hahah, nice one ;)

[unreal22000]

WHY is it Carbon credits are up for Auction by GRAYS online today. Being sold by a sydney solar company with verified credits underwritten by US & UK finance companies. As well as promoted by some dubious Inidan operators. Not forgetting the verifying company has members such as Coca Cola, Nike, JP morgan, Bank Swiss + More. yep all credible scientific authorities to ENFORCE GLOBAL SCAM TAX.

[2wheels88]

People stop asking for the science all of the science is at the galileo website.

[FriendsOfNone]

These videos are terrible. Please include references in the future.

[GalileoMovement]

@FriendsOfNone The references are contained in the comments section of the video - just click the "show more" button.

[FriendsOfNone]

@GalileoMovement So I guess we will just take your word on it?

[AVMamfortas]

@FriendsOfNone These videos are only 'terrible' to a liar.

[FriendsOfNone]

@AVMamfortas Lying hasn't got anything to do with it. These videos are only good for politically blinded, middle-aged right-wing conspiracy theorists. You guys can sure come across as a loony bunch.

[squellock]

Good

[246buthead]

I find it strange how they call it a carbon tax not a carbon dioxide tax, there's a huge difference between the 2, e.g carbon is a commonly used material in everyday living like the everyday graphite pencil even the shiny diamond on your ring is carbon. If they can't even get the name right then there is definitely something wrong.

[aliasjames11]

@246buthead Actually what is being introduced is an greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme which will have a fixed price for three years. It is the opposition that has called it a carbon tax for short. The fact that the price is fixed for three years technically allows them to call it a tax. Labor's original intention was to introduce an emissions trading scheme without an introductory fixed price. However in order to form government, the greens argued that the scheme needed to be improved.

[aliasjames11]

@246buthead One of the improvements to the scheme was that the price was to be fixed for three years. This has the effect of eliminating the price volatility which the scheme could be prone to immediately after it is introduced. The benefit is that it increases certainty for investors.

[246buthead]

@aliasjames11 How did that have anything to do with my comment? I said that they're calling it by the wrong name. I didn't mention anything to do with the pricing of the tax. You bloody imbecile.

[aliasjames11]

@246buthead It seems that you are very angry. Would you like to tell us something more about that?

Your point is irrelevant. Clearly 'Carbon' is short for 'Carbon dioxide'. Can you not see that? It's just about convenience - don't you think. But the term is use mainly by the opposition anyway. Furthermore, the economic instrument that is being introduced covers a range of gases (not just carbon dioxide). And based on international standards, these gasses are measured in CO2 equivalents.

[246buthead]

@aliasjames11 I don't care what the opposition call it, in terms of scientific grammar it shouldn't be called a carbon tax due to carbon being a separate compound so it shouldn't actually be shortened.

On another note if it's covering other gases that has no carbon e.g Nitrogen Oxides meaning the word Carbon is only referring to carbon based compounds.

Finally if the international community measures in CO2 equivalents then it supports the fact that the name should be Carbon Dioxide Tax.

[aliasjames11]

@246buthead OK that is all fine. Its just that this isn't really adding any value to the debate now is it. BTW grammar is not a science it is linguistics. You really do live up to your username don't you.

[246buthead]

@aliasjames11 No no no you've got it all wrong, Scientific grammar isn't the same as grammar in English. It's about the correct notations and and laws of the scientific world, pretty sure a guy wrote a book about it back in the 19th century or something. Oh and you're the one that did reply to my comment in the first place so having a debate about it wasn't exactly my idea. :)

P.S I'll take that last point you made as a compliment. :P

[7Ethereal7]

CARBON DIOXIDE IS ESSENTIAL PLANT FOOD. ALARMISTS ARE DECEPTIVE BY REFERRING TO CARBON DIOXIDE AS "CARBON" , SOMETHING WHICH WE ASSOCIATE WITH BEING DIRTY AND SOOTY. THEY NEVER SEEM TO REFER TO ITS SCIENTIFIC NAME WHICH ILLUSTRATES ITS NECESSITY FOR ALL PLANT LIFE TO LIVE. THIS GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF FALSE DOCTRINES THAT DECEIVE GULLIBLE PEOPLE.

[aliasjames11]

@7Ethereal7 This is an extremely weak argument. This term 'Carbon' is used in the public forum by all sides of the debate. I think it is used simply for convenience.

[aliasjames11]

This guy says at the end that he is protecting your money - clearly HE is driven by financial interests. He also has a history in mining. WHAT A JOKE.

[GalileoMovement]

@aliasjames11 This is a debate about a carbon TAX, which raises MONEY, Malcolm has mentioned the word money in a debate about...money and you use that to cast dispersions on his motivation. Terrible argument so far, hope your next comments get better.

[aliasjames11]

@GalileoMovement Actually this is a debate about science. The problem with you is that you are using erroneous statements about the science of climate change to defend against a tax which is about money. You are purely a climate change skeptic and you have not proposed any alternatives for the tax. You simply argue that polluters should not pay because there is no proof of climate change. Therefore this is a debate about the science of climate change.

[aliasjames11]

The oceans' absorbative capaticy for CO2 is decreasing and we are seeing the acidification of oceans. This is impacting the ability for many species to reproduce becasue these fragile processes rely on the water being at a particular pH level.

[GalileoMovement]

@aliasjames11 Nope not getting better! One one hand you are saying the oceans cannot absorb more CO2 and then you say rising CO2 i the Oceans is causing acidification. You cant have both! BTW there is no proof that the Ocean is hitting a CO2 limit, there is some proof that the PH level is changing in the oceans, no proof that it is causing damage to the coral because there IS proof that corals adapt to changes in PH below 1000 ppm atmospheric CO2.

[aliasjames11]

Humans introduce CO2 into the atmosphere that would not be there otherwise and thereby upset the balance. What this guy isn't telling us is that nature puts C02 into the atmosphere as well as taking it out in the same amounts every year. Think of a bath tub with water running into it at the same rate it flows out - the level remains the same. But if you come along and put more water into the tub then the level rises. This guy is misleading you.

[GalileoMovement]

@aliasjames11 I notice you opened your account on Youtube just to make these posts, no other posts, no other videos, just this. OK lets assume you are not just a propaganda agent for the warmers and look at what oyu have said. Nature does not put the same amount in and out each year - that is a nonsense statement you wil not be able to provide science on. Atmospheric CO2 has ranged from 300ppm to over 1000ppm in times well before the industrial revolution. -2

[GalileoMovement]

-2 Since the industrial revolution CO2 has gone from 330ppm to 380ppm of which we have contributed 4% of that CO2. Warmer theory is based on the principle that this little bit of man-made CO2 is enough to cause catastrophic warming, we say bullshit and if you follow the links on the bottom of the email, we advance the science to prove it.

[aliasjames11]

@GalileoMovement This is not correct. Natural Processes have kept CO2 levels relatively stable over the last ten thousand years. These natural processes do emit CO2 into the atmosphere but they also extract CO2 out of the atmosphere - and these opposing processes occur basically at the same rate over any one year. It is like a breath in and a breath out over one year. But human activity has introduced CO2 - CUMULATIVELY. The current rate for human emissions is 4%. The effect is cumulative.

[GalileoMovement]

@aliasjames11 Cumulative - this is another flaw in the AGW theory, in fact for mine the biggest. 19 studies have found CO2 has a resident life in the range 8 to 12 years. There is one study that says it it resident for 100 years and that is produced by the ....IPCC. Human CO2 is not cumulative because it doesn't build up as the warmers say it does. Google "jennifermarohasy + why I am " for the chart with citations. This has always been a massive flaw in the whole AGW scare.

[aliasjames11]

@GalileoMovement Granted the levels of C02 have changed, but this has occurred over very large time frames. I was referring to the fact the on a year on year (short term) basis the Earth does for the most part keep CO2 levels relatively stable and that human emissions are upsetting this natural stability. Please point me to the science that you have... to allay my fears, I very much hope that you are right.

[radiantcold]

The lower house held an initial vote on the Clean Energy Future Bill 2011 plus 17 associated bills on Tuesday evening.

Labor won the vote 74-73.

[2wheels88]

Malcolm they (the government and scientists) do know better,they have'nt just made a mistake their is a far bigger agenda at play than Gov funding and keeping their jobs.It is an Ideology,a deliberate plan to bring about a scientific dictatorship.Making humans the target or the bad guys is their aim so that they may justify their other secret programs of depopulation as stated in UN Agenda 21 Documents.We are litterally staring at the face of EVIL.How do we expose this?

[GordonAlderson]

So clear and irrefutable.

I challenge every politician to sit with one or more alarmist scientists and cross-examine those scientists on if / where this presentation is in-accurate. When they cannot fault this presentation they need to rescind their alarmism; They must revert to scientific integrity.

[AVMamfortas]

LOUDER.

SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOF.

[sabretoothed69]

Very informative video