LIVID!! !! !! !! !! !!

Post Reply New Topic

Julia Gillard looked the people of Australia in the eye and said

"There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead."

Enough said, really.

I can't begin to articulate my revilement of this move, the imposition of a carbon tax on Australia. Both for the inherent broken promise - before anyone says anything, John Howard fought an election on the GST and won - and for the irrationality of this move. Lowering living standards intentionally is one thing. Another, far stupider, move is to tax something then compensate people for the tax they pay. In essence, no carbon reduction will eventuate as people will be able to afford the same amount of Carbon! I may have only gotten a distinction in university economics, but something's wrong here.

It's them bloody Lefter-than-thou greens............................................................

I don't see anything wrong with Carbon Tax.

I'm waiting for a Dawkinsesque absolute proof of anthropogenic Global Warming before I start caring. Environmentalism is a religion that cares not for facts or logic, just feelings and the life affirming mantra of "save the earth, man. The debate only is ever seen to take place between dumbass prick politics who declare themselves Scientists.

And worst of all, there is a ridiculous amount of unspeak thrown around; calling someone a "Climate Denier"? Really? We didn't cause the f*****g holocaust, so don't try to give us guilt through association. And to pin the language as as to claim that skeptics are heretics against the Ultimate Truth revealed is dirty, sneaky, and immoral.

I will care, when some one tells me why I should, when they refute any counter argument. Until then, Climate is the domain of Hippies, Politicians and mute scientists.

Pols is pols.

Not the first, not the last.

My sympathies, but one learns to expect nothing.

That you can be sure of getting.

I agree, there is some evidence but it is poorly understood and hardly set in stone. They are wasting resources on climate change science that could be going towards better things. Related but unrelated, I still support sustainable tech, whether or not we're changing the climate.

Why should i assume that i know better than the world's scientists when it comes to climate change? To me, i'd have to be startling arrogant to do such a thing.

I can only shake my head. Being an armchair skeptic is just too damn easy. Continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere at the present rate (or higher) for the next one, two, three centuries is going to raise the earth's temperature. Scientifically this is a foregone conclusion. The only question is how much. Then there's also that other pesky little issue, fossil fuels are a limited resource!. The s**t's eventually gonna run out guys...

Livid was awesome!!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfzsk4jzMR0[/youtube]

PJW, I am also an Australian and just as angry as you are.

But let me ask everyone here from every country a question:
"Are our leaders just stupid or are they traitors to their own people?"

Oh gee, we must destroy our own countries to prevent "global warming"
A lot of scientists say we are entering an ICE AGE and the last three years should give you a hint.

In Australia we are not allowed to burn our own coal. (That would be naughty)
But we can sell it all to the Chinese so that THEY can burn it.

In New Zealand they tax farmers because their cows and sheep FART!
I kid you not. They really do.

The American government wouldn't sign on to carbon reduction so Obama had carbon dioxide banned by the IPA.

There were blackouts in Texas recently.
Why? Because coal fired power plants were SHUT DOWN.

Obama says he will drive the coal industry into bankruptcy, but HALF of America's power comes from coal.

So while we must produce far less power, our governments see fit to let millions more people into our countries.

I read an article today that said that the British National Health Service is about to shed 50,000 jobs because the government couldn't afford the money.

Yet Britain continues to allow millions of people to enter Britain.

I ask again. Are our leaders fools or traitors?

ORLY.... You have evidence for that????

Wombat's right.

There was hysteria throughout the 60's and 70's that because of the cooling trend of the last thirty years, and with the mini ice age having only ended a couple of hundred years before and with the last true Ice Age - with capitals - having ended only 10,000 years ago and with climate epochs being measured in millions of years, not thousands, that we were headed back into Ice Aged-ness.

We were told not to panic. Temperatures were rising. Now we're panicking because temperatures that haven't risen since 1998 are rising.

How does this work? I don't know. Neither do I understand how with the world's temperature throughout its vegetative history is, on average, 20 degrees celcuis, this is one of the few things about which science is in consensus, the temperature in 2010 was 14.63, and this is dangerous warming. What are we so worried about?

As to Wombat's point about the stupidity of leadership, Julia Gillard said this morning that power prices will increase independently of a Carbon Price, but, get this, by taxing Carbon she could now compensate people.

WHAT?

Source?

@PJW I took out a few exclamation marks from the title, they were stretching the home page

The Carbon Tax is stretching my nerves. I apologise. It was either over-exclaim or it was burst a blood vessel. I've burst enough of those throughout my life to know better by now.

Wombat is wrong. No scientists today believe we are entering a new ice age.


You think I haven't heard this crap before? You're just repeating propaganda. That the "hysteria" surrounding the cooling trend of the 60s and 70s was ever anywhere near a scientific consensus is just outright fabrication. Even then, a large number of scientists were speculating that the climate was warming over the long haul due to increasing CO2. There just wasn't the amount of evidence there is today. I'll provide a link later but I'm tired at the moment.





The planet's ecosystem was vastly different in those time periods where the earth averaged a higher temperature than it is today. In fact, the continents were in a different position. Listen. Do I think a warming climate will mean the end of the world (or even the end of humanity)? No. Is a warming climate going to present difficulties? Most likely.


Criticize carbon taxes all you want. Just make sure you are informed before attacking climate scientists. Despite what you want to believe, they are the messengers, not the policy makers. The accusations that climate scientists are frauds in some "conspiracy" by the NWO to crash the world economy is slanderous tin-foil hattery. I have worked in the climate science community (have an MS in atmospheric science), and believe me, climate scientists are ordinary people. They aren't all the far-left hippy environmentalists you think they are.

BTW I don't support carbon taxes at the moment.

@marshall

It's simple.

The Pliocene, 5 million to 1.8 million years ago saw the geographical creation of the world as it is today. The continents settled where they are now. The Panama Isthmus and the Himalayan and Rocky Mountain ranges formed, and the SUBSTANTIVE - inasmuch as the glacier as we now know it - glaciation of Greenland BEGAN.

Temperatures during the Pliocene, which is considered a cooling epoch, went from 25 down to 22 degrees. While, this is the kicker and why I have never believe in a precipitative CO2 effect, CO2 levels went from 200ppm to 400ppm.

That's right, the climate COOLED and CO2 INCREASED.

What more need I say?

As it is, and this has been proven following the release of the University of East Anglia emails, the temperature increase we're all worried about hasn't happened since 1998. To combat this, believe it, scientists decommissioned temperature stations in cooler regions and replaced them with ones in warmer regions, even in the same city, taking their temperature recording devices from vegetative places to over bitumen. Believe it also, cities, with their concrete and bitumen, are heat sinks.

The climate stopped warming, so scientists manipulated the data. This is proven beyond doubt. For instance, the IPCC used New Zealand as an example of substantive increasing warming. New Zealand's Met Office published that in the last half of the twentieth century, New Zealand had warmed by .92 degrees. The raw data, however, said the temperature had not increased at all. The average was the SAME as it had been in 1950. As it was also the SAME as in 1850 at 12.5 degrees +/- .05 degrees.

Well...

No warming, but tax to stop the warming. Where did I go wrong here?