Its a Conspiracy!!!!
#237 – Conspiracy Theories « Things Bogans Like

Cheers
BH

I believe "con" is a confidence trick, not a conspiracy.

But I could be wrong again.

Frank's correct. Same goes for the term 'Con-Man' or Confidence Trickster.

Fuel-Off :ok:

The link says in part..
...While the world’s thinking community remains vexed, the bogan’s verdict is in. Climate change for instance, is nothing but a ‘Trojan Horse’ for power-hungry scientists to force their big taxing, redistributive socialist green left agenda on ‘hard working Australians’.

Compared to EVYJET's
I

The government is implementing a tax. Seems we're not the only ones who's Verdict is in!:ugh:

Anyway, I think we've seen enough uninformed attempted trashing of the science. Tax or no tax, and whether or not you believe it's a workable solution to reducing emissions, it is not going to cost mass jobs in the aviation industry.

What amazes me is that we observe much talk about "alarmism" yet in the same sentence cry that "we're all gonna be ruined" because a tax is levied on certain parts of industry. The truth virtually never resembles this. Industry has a history of screaming blue murder then quietly adjusting to the circumstances, and will do so again. Eg, the CFC phaseout which was going to single-handedly destroy the worldwide refrigeration industry - which was still alive and thriving last time I ordered a beer - just for the sake of a lousy layer of stratospheric ozone which stops us being completely fried by UV radiation from the sun. :rolleyes:

The planet will also adjust to the reality of having very large amounts of greenhouse gases pumped into its atmosphere in a very short space of geological time as a consequence of human industrialisation. It will warm up with many associated consequences some of which are likely to be very difficult to manage. Unless we discover new laws of physics, it simply doesn't have a choice and quibbling over the minutiae is not worth your time. :=

This whole debate is running much the same course, though probably over a different time scale, as the smoking/lung cancer/tobacco debate. Right now we're where that debate was in the 60s and 70s: the science is accumulating substantial evidence that it's not such a good thing, the industry is fighting tooth and nail to deny that there's an issue, and many people are choosing to just ignore it because they don't want to change their habits or they have more important things to worry about right now.

Ultimately though, just as in that scenario and many others, we humans may end up suffering for our ignorance. :ouch: But the aviation industry will still be here in some form or another.

Tis a pity that the vast green cloud of smug that hovers over sections of the community can not be taxed.

Smug: the leading cause of Global Laming.

AA if you're such a big earner and are worried about electricity going up 35%, install solar panels on your massive roof, pitch a wind turbine in your back yard, and get off the grid.

This country could run solely on renewables. There is enough sun, wind and heat in the ground to power this whole joint. It just needs funding, vision and a government/leader with the sack (or whatever the female equivalent is) to do it.

You think the tax will damage business?? The real damage is being done by Abbott. His promise to ditch the tax is preventing industry from investing in cleaner energy options.

Great to read some of the well informed opinions on this thread. Starting to tire of the drivel I hear on the flight deck RE the destruction of our way of life due to Co2 tax. FFS.

Anti Carbon-Tax Durka Dur - YouTube

Philip Stott, Professor emeritus of Biogeography, U of London.

DutchRoll said:
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a political dogma in search of supporting scientific evidence.

The fact that (climate change or global warming?) is happening is not disputed. That’s the ONLY “fact” you’ve mentioned above that is not debated by climate scientists. “Credible” is a nice little adjective used to brush off any point of view contrary to your own.

The “extremely high probability that it is due to greenhouse gases” is misleading. Some scientists think this might be likely. Other scientists think this has little, if anything to do with greenhouse gases. Evidence for or against your conclusion has not been found to any significant degree. It might be a completely natural cycle. We just do not know with any significant degree of certainty yet.

“The absence of any other viable explanations” spoken like a true believer. There are several other explanations for which research is ongoing and which are gaining in viability each day as anthropogenic global warming loses (scientific) support. The pro-CO2 warmers just don’t want to upset their gravy train and political influence by considering any discussion other than human produced CO2.

SOME…Some “greenhouse gases are due to our industrialization”. A very, very small amount. The ALP is going to tax CO2 production. Less than 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is derived from human activities. And CO2 makes up a tiny proportion of the total atmospheric gases. The overwhelming (by far) greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour. We have a pretty good idea on how much CO2 is produced as a result of human activities. We have far, far less certainty on natural CO2 production and sinks.

CO2 absorbs longwave radiation only at specific wavelengths. It’s propensity as a greenhouse gas reduces on a logarithmic scale with an increase in its concentration. Doubling its present concentration will only add about 1 degree of additional heat to the atmosphere. However, this isn’t the part that supports the catastrophic CO2 argument. We have to rely on computers for that. There’s something about a “tipping point” where the concentration of CO2 causes uncontained feedback from clouds to cause Armageddon and runaway temperature increase. Trouble is, the alarmists don’t know whether clouds have a positive or negative feedback. The global warming protagonists have conveniently assumed clouds have a positive feedback (fancy that!). Current evidence seems to indicate positive AND negative, but predominately negative feedback.

“That there will be long term consequences, and some of these are visible and measurable already" is yet another misleading assertion. The consequences you speak of are computer model projections…nothing more. Perhaps you should have replaced “will” with “may” and hedged your bets like the official press releases.

“It is not worth your time to quibble over details.” Al Gore will be proud of you. Quell dissent and evidence to the contrary of your opinion with a wave of your hand.

Contrary to your opinion, the hockey stick has been completely debunked. Scientists in support of global warming tried to argue against the debunkers, but were only taken seriously in their own support group. It's dead in mainstream science. The manufacturers of that little graph couldn’t even get the past right, let alone have it relied upon for future predictions. The simple fact that temperatures for the past 10 years have not followed the hockey stick’s predictions mean that those predictions were wrong.

An essential element of every catastrophic global warming prediction is a tropical hotspot in the upper atmosphere. Still nothing…nada…zip. Sea levels are dropping…how inconvenient. Global land temperatures are stagnant or descending. Ocean temperatures are declining. The best the AGW scientists can come up with is aerosols in the atmosphere, missing heat slipping past thousands of ARGO buoys and trapped at deep ocean depths and excess rainfall causing a drop in sea levels. Pure speculation tossed out to support a fractured argument.

Strim said:
Run a farmer’s tractor or a bulldozer, or a semi-trailer effectively on renewable energy! See how far you get. For that matter, try it completely on biofuels if you want to consider that too…the biofuels produced by that tractor with organic farming practices.

Wait! I’m wrong, Australia could run solely on renewables. We could move 98% of the population offshore and the rest could live in caves; the remaining males could hunt game and the women could scavenge for nuts and berries.

Gillard is giving it a good try. She has two of the three necessary requirements you outline above. Try and pick the odd one out.

This just goes on and on. :bored: Skeptics of science can always ferret out a 'dissenter' and pin their hopes on having picked the 'right horse'. As a Biogeographer, Philip Stott has considerable expertise in plant and animal distributions. Those subjects are minor parts of the overall knowledge on climate change and global warming.
This is my final offering to this thread. Thanks for reading my post. :)

And as is so common amongst supporters of AGW, any person who has an opinion that is different to theirs is summarily dismissed with personal attacks and dissing of qualifications.

AussieAviator started this discussion with a comment about the carbon tax.

The tax is designed to be a graduated implementation. Regardless of my personal feelings towards the “science” behind the decision, this tax will have significant repercussions for the economy. Costs will go up. A government rarely introduces a new tax where costs go down. I don’t think too many people will see the results of this tax for about 5 years. International airlines from other countries will have tariffs imposed so that the local airlines remain competitive. By that stage, multinational organizations will have had time to set up offshore shelf companies to receive and return exported goods. Small to mid-level organisations where energy costs represent a larger percentage of costs than their larger competitors will be having a very difficult time remaining competitive if they continue to be based in Australia.

Government jobs will have expanded significantly as opportunities for carbon police cannot be filled fast enough. International tourists will be seen standing in line at departure lounges shaking their heads and counting change wondering how such a beautiful country with hospitable people can have such a screwed up government.

Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party will be navel gazing plotting its strategy for re-election in 2045.

Oh really, I would have said that the vitriol was coming from the other direction.
I could go on but have work to do

Lets hope so.

Mind you it will take that long IF and I mean IF we have good quality fiscal management from any other governments to recover from the debt and destruction the Rudd/Gillard lot have done in just a few years.

Socialism is a wonderful thing until you run out of OTHER peoples money.

Hyperbole anyone??

Slip of the tongue?
 

Are you sure you don't mean Hyperbowl?

Another of our PM's little slip ups, along with visiting Cans, you know, the French city:confused:

I thought that little hyperbole was quite appropriate. Lots of debt and destruction of various industries, some of which are yet to happen but are in the pipeline.

Underlying economy is RS:oh:T and there will be more to come.

Is this a known known or an unknown known or perhaps an unknown unknown.
And for craigieburn - I think every one now knows how it is pronounced, even the illiterate who had never heard the word before.

I think that the fact that the highest office holder in our land, a former lawyer no less, does not know how to correctly pronounce relatively simple words speaks volumes about the insular, cloistered world in which she lives.
Form High School to Uni, from Uni to a left wing law firm, from said law firm to politics, a sheltered upbringing in which nobody has had the temerity to correct her, you know how it is, close enough = good enough

Ad Hominem anyone?