CARBON TAX-It's Started!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melborn
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Ultralights,
Just to add salt into the wound, last I looked, diesel was @14-15CPL MORE expensive than petrol. Any benefit you had WRT saving just vapourised.What utter corruption and profiteering. Where's the toothless tiger ACCC and that waste of space fuel commissioner/watchdog??????????????
don't get me started on fuel prices; this is the biggest thorn in my side
Just to add salt into the wound, last I looked, diesel was @14-15CPL MORE expensive than petrol. Any benefit you had WRT saving just vapourised.What utter corruption and profiteering. Where's the toothless tiger ACCC and that waste of space fuel commissioner/watchdog??????????????
don't get me started on fuel prices; this is the biggest thorn in my side
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All labour governments are big on bringing in new taxes.
They need to pay for their stuff ups.
A hundred years ago, we didn't have any of the taxes we now have.
We were in the lucky country.
Now we are over taxed and over regulated.
I would say, about 80% of your hard earned, would go to the government, one way or another.
Close to being a communist country.
Now we have a tax on CO2 to combat global warming, sorry, climate change.
A tax on breathing.
Ever notice, when they have this subject on the news, they usually show the evaporator chimneys at the coal burning plants, spewing out all that nasty steam, pretending it's smoke full of CO2.
More bull**** to the naive Australian public.
I have been living in Japan for the last 9 years, and every time I come back to Aus, I'm astounded at how expensive it is to live.
I pay about $90 a quarter for electricity in Japan.
And that's after they dig the coal out of Australia and ship it all the way to Japan and burn it.
In Australia, your standing on coal, and it costs about $600 a quarter.
Go figure!
****, Australian oranges are cheaper in Japan.
Vegetation grows faster in a CO2 rich environment, so that's a good thing, isn't it?
Thank you o Lord for the locus plague, you are so merciful.
They need to pay for their stuff ups.
A hundred years ago, we didn't have any of the taxes we now have.
We were in the lucky country.
Now we are over taxed and over regulated.
I would say, about 80% of your hard earned, would go to the government, one way or another.
Close to being a communist country.
Now we have a tax on CO2 to combat global warming, sorry, climate change.
A tax on breathing.
Ever notice, when they have this subject on the news, they usually show the evaporator chimneys at the coal burning plants, spewing out all that nasty steam, pretending it's smoke full of CO2.
More bull**** to the naive Australian public.
I have been living in Japan for the last 9 years, and every time I come back to Aus, I'm astounded at how expensive it is to live.
I pay about $90 a quarter for electricity in Japan.
And that's after they dig the coal out of Australia and ship it all the way to Japan and burn it.
In Australia, your standing on coal, and it costs about $600 a quarter.
Go figure!
****, Australian oranges are cheaper in Japan.
Vegetation grows faster in a CO2 rich environment, so that's a good thing, isn't it?
Thank you o Lord for the locus plague, you are so merciful.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dutchie Dutchie Dutchie
You sent me to that site, that is just what it said, under examples. The interesting thing is no matter what you plug into that site there is NO alarming evidence for warming in the last ten years. Lets look shall we at a few things.
Ohhh OK, sorry, I just used their EXAMPLES.....so their default data set. None the less I will go do a few more! See below.
Cherry Picking 
FFS old mate, that is a science only known to the AGW camp. For a start, I did no Cherry picking of the sort, in fact I over did the data sample, as this is the end of 2011 I should have made the data from 2002 which gives a 10 year data set. So I will use that for these next few.
I do do I???? Those graphs used the same data sets, but hey I am glad you brought this up because using unreferenced different data sets (FRAUD) is exactly what the AGW's actually do.
Don't believe me? Just ask Kev07 and Penny Wong and Peter Garret about a meeting in Canberra a couple of years ago when they(AGW's) pulled out a bunch of charts as evidence. If it were not by sheer fluke that one member of the meeting group had not had a discussion with a Ian Plimer a day before hand was made aware of the deliberate method of deception.
So here we go, just some random selections of data sets. Hardly convincing of anything alarming in climate change, despite CO2 still rising. Even the one with a slight rise is damned near flat line.
And best of all lets try using the WoodForTrees data set, remember this guy claims he has no axe to grind but is on the green side of the spectrum.
And I never said I was on the world stage with the big boys, but apparently you are?????? The funny thing is the AGW camp peer review their own propoganda, then along comes a mathematics genius and finds there is fraud in the "evidence" and the IPCC had fallen for it. I do not need to be a climatologist to follow that logic.
You sent me to that site, that is just what it said, under examples. The interesting thing is no matter what you plug into that site there is NO alarming evidence for warming in the last ten years. Lets look shall we at a few things.
a) the data you chose is HADCRUT3 variance adjusted, not the UAH which Bob Carter used in his chart.
b) you need to learn something about cherry-picking start dates (you stumbled on a great choice with 2001).
FFS old mate, that is a science only known to the AGW camp. For a start, I did no Cherry picking of the sort, in fact I over did the data sample, as this is the end of 2011 I should have made the data from 2002 which gives a 10 year data set. So I will use that for these next few.
c) you need to learn something about putting different datasets in context
Don't believe me? Just ask Kev07 and Penny Wong and Peter Garret about a meeting in Canberra a couple of years ago when they(AGW's) pulled out a bunch of charts as evidence. If it were not by sheer fluke that one member of the meeting group had not had a discussion with a Ian Plimer a day before hand was made aware of the deliberate method of deception.
So here we go, just some random selections of data sets. Hardly convincing of anything alarming in climate change, despite CO2 still rising. Even the one with a slight rise is damned near flat line.
And best of all lets try using the WoodForTrees data set, remember this guy claims he has no axe to grind but is on the green side of the spectrum.
If you are going to play with the big boys, you need to know roughly what you're doing,
The funny thing is the AGW camp peer review their own propoganda, then along comes a mathematics genius and finds there is fraud in the "evidence" and the IPCC had fallen for it. I do not need to be a climatologist to follow that logic.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And my 43 year old MG gets about 6l/100k.
Technology hasn't improved much
Technology hasn't improved much
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Michael Shermer..."the world's most respected sceptic"!!! A sceptic who mentions on his website that he became a believer after watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? You have got to be joking!
Is there anyone anywhere that puts any faith in Al Gore's film besides Dr Shermer? I guess Dr Shermer's idea of evidence and my idea of evidence are divergent.
I'm sure you know of this little list DutchRoll:
Global Warming Petition Project
Perhaps you can bag each one of these 31,487 US scientists, including a little over 9,000 PhD's who seem to be squarely in your denier/fake sceptic camp. That's a long list of scientist deniers.
peterc005 the world was warmer 1000 years ago and before that around the period of the Roman empire. So to say that the last decade was the warmest on record is true when accurate records only go back 150 years, but it isn't the whole story. It's a convenient argument when trying to link fossil fuel use to temperature, but the real-world evidence of a link is becoming more and more tenuous, if there ever indeed was one.
peterc005 take the WMO press releases with a grain of salt.
From More UN Lies From The Un-Christian Anti-Science Monitor
Later that month I attended the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference in Monterey, California, where former Vice President Al Gore delivered the single finest summation of the evidence for global warming I have ever heard, based on the 2006 documentary film about his work in this area, An Inconvenient Truth. Because we are primates with such visually dominant sensory systems, we need to see the evidence to believe it, and the striking visuals of countless graphs and charts, and especially the before-and-after photographs showing the disappearance of glaciers around the world, shocked me viscerally and knocked me out my skepticism.
I'm sure you know of this little list DutchRoll:
Global Warming Petition Project
Perhaps you can bag each one of these 31,487 US scientists, including a little over 9,000 PhD's who seem to be squarely in your denier/fake sceptic camp. That's a long list of scientist deniers.
peterc005 the world was warmer 1000 years ago and before that around the period of the Roman empire. So to say that the last decade was the warmest on record is true when accurate records only go back 150 years, but it isn't the whole story. It's a convenient argument when trying to link fossil fuel use to temperature, but the real-world evidence of a link is becoming more and more tenuous, if there ever indeed was one.
peterc005 take the WMO press releases with a grain of salt.
Until this week, every day in 2011 was cooler than 2010. 2011 has averaged 0.35C cooler than 2010. So 2011 is 0.35 cooler than La Nina year 2010, but 2011 is also the hottest La Nina year. The UN is FUBAR.
Last edited by Lodown; 1st Dec 2011 at 05:55.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would the ALP, Police or ACCC care about some commercial TV program?
One of the attributes about all the conspiracy theory nutters is paranoia.
I notice on other places within PPRUNE the 9/11 "Truther" conspiracy theory nutters have been banned.
The problem with banning anti-climate change nutters on PPRUNE is that it would just give them something else to see as a conspiracy.
One of the attributes about all the conspiracy theory nutters is paranoia.
I notice on other places within PPRUNE the 9/11 "Truther" conspiracy theory nutters have been banned.
The problem with banning anti-climate change nutters on PPRUNE is that it would just give them something else to see as a conspiracy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tongue in cheek peter. The Labor party, through the ACCC, has threatened fines for businesses that advertise a link between the carbon tax and price hikes and its now spending a bucketload on advertising the carbon tax. Lot of money being spent on a contentious issue, but I suppose the goal is to get approval ratings back up, rather than to promote the carbon tax.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not anti climate change. It's been happening for aeons and will continue to happen so long as that fiery ball in the sky keeps pushing heat out.
However, I am against the dodgy 'science', the scare-mongering, the politicisation, the rapacious taxes, and the warmistas who continue to denigrate those who might have a different opinion to them.
So, peterc005 are you calling me a nutter?
However, I am against the dodgy 'science', the scare-mongering, the politicisation, the rapacious taxes, and the warmistas who continue to denigrate those who might have a different opinion to them.
So, peterc005 are you calling me a nutter?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes he/ she/ it is. See rule 5- include "nutter"
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, nutter.
There is no shortage of nutters and conspiracy theories.
The UFO ones are the most colorful. I think the 9/11 "Truther" ones are the worst because they are offensive to the families of those who died in 9/11.
The AGW nutters seem to have more of a conservative political framework.
The science behind global warming is solid and proven by a couple of decades of peer review.
The Carbon Tax is one step forward in doing something about man made global warming and should be welcomed.
There is no shortage of nutters and conspiracy theories.
The UFO ones are the most colorful. I think the 9/11 "Truther" ones are the worst because they are offensive to the families of those who died in 9/11.
The AGW nutters seem to have more of a conservative political framework.
The science behind global warming is solid and proven by a couple of decades of peer review.
The Carbon Tax is one step forward in doing something about man made global warming and should be welcomed.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear now that most of us "nutters" have not bought it, so they are trying a new tack. It's heart attacks, the plague, strokes, you name it, accompanied by giant mozzies, all ready to kill us all with one foul swipe all because of global warming. Yes folks, you can look forward to a interesting death brought to you by carbon dioxide. I would suggest many of the heart attacks will be brought on by the stress and inability to be able to survive the carbon tax costs for many, rather than global warming.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the absurd argument by the AGW people is that anyone who questions them, anyone who points out their obsession with a hoax, anyone who rightly calls them "nutters" is part of some conspiracy.
Their deluded paranoia is that anyone who doesn't toe their line is part of some conspiracy.
I think Al Gore is someone of immense integrity and has done great work getting the world moving towards action on climate change.
Their deluded paranoia is that anyone who doesn't toe their line is part of some conspiracy.
I think Al Gore is someone of immense integrity and has done great work getting the world moving towards action on climate change.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor deluded peterc005. Some 18 posts and no one is really paying any attention to your assertions. Finally you link to a little PR BS fluff to keep the journalists in Durban supplied with copy for their editors. That's the best you can do? You don't even run a basic check on the data to see if it's valid? The information in the article is highlighted for the garbage it is and suddenly you start stamping your feet and we're paranoid conspiracy theorists and nutters? Way to frame a discussion peterc005. It says on your bio that your age is 46. Perhaps that should be between 4 and 6. Grow up.
Then again, with your rabid support for Al Gore, perhaps you are the real Al Gore.
DutchRoll: I appreciated the discussion with you. If you're still following the thread, a new and interesting paper to read debunking back radiation:
Then again, with your rabid support for Al Gore, perhaps you are the real Al Gore.
DutchRoll: I appreciated the discussion with you. If you're still following the thread, a new and interesting paper to read debunking back radiation:
A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They
Reveal About "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?Matthias Kleespies, Germany, November 18th, 2011
Reveal About "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?Matthias Kleespies, Germany, November 18th, 2011
Last edited by Lodown; 1st Dec 2011 at 20:32.