MERGED: Petrol exempt from carbon tax. Aviation included?
Thread Starter
I don't buy the argument that carbon dioxide is so insignificant that nothing needs to be done. If it's so insignificant then how did this happen?
The world's temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees in the last 130 years. Most of this in the last few decades (according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies).
If the Earth was a human body (not as stupid a comparison as it sounds) it would be getting sick. Another couple of degrees and it would die.
I use to think most people shared my (and scientists) views concerning global warming, but everytime a shock jock spews excrement over the airwaves in relation to how global warming is leftie propaganda I feel a little more like I'm in the minority.
The world's temperature has risen about 0.8 degrees in the last 130 years. Most of this in the last few decades (according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies).
If the Earth was a human body (not as stupid a comparison as it sounds) it would be getting sick. Another couple of degrees and it would die.
I use to think most people shared my (and scientists) views concerning global warming, but everytime a shock jock spews excrement over the airwaves in relation to how global warming is leftie propaganda I feel a little more like I'm in the minority.
edited to add, the global average temperature cannot have been measured over the last 130 years - only estimated! Now, it was less than a degree you were talking about, wasn't it?
edited again to add, if you boosted the natural land and vegetation absorption of CO2 by only 6%, you'd completely wipe out the effect of all man-made emissions of CO2 and equivalents.
via Fonz121: I use to think most people shared my (and scientists) views concerning global warming, but everytime a shock jock spews excrement over the airwaves in relation to how global warming is leftie propaganda I feel a little more like I'm in the minority.
.
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
If it's so insignificant then how did this happen?
Unfortunately, to secure the grant monies, certain "scientists" with agendas will frighten the pants off Joe Public by dishonestly linking particulate pollution with increases in certain gasses, dishonestly skewing projections and "loading" computer programs to ensure that "modelling" produces the answers which keep the grant monies flowing.
And that's before we start on the politics of it all.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice dust storm picture Fonz, CO2 is clear.... just as is every other gas in the atmosphere... oh, and if you would like to use the temperature increase as a sickness analogy, how do you explain the FACT we are still here after the earth has been quite a few deg warmer than it is now numerous times in the past???
and dont forget all the doom and gloom scenarios we are told in the media is based on Computer Modelling....
some of which have already proven to be wildly untrue.
10 yrs ago, Sydney was going to run out of rain supplied water..... hasn't happened, 10 yrs ago, my front yard would be under water by now.... nope, no 30 cm ocean level rise yet.. 10 yrs ago, the aussie ski fields would be lucky to have a mtre of snow over its entire season now, we already have 100 cm snow this season, and its only a few weeks old...
and dont forget all the doom and gloom scenarios we are told in the media is based on Computer Modelling....
some of which have already proven to be wildly untrue.10 yrs ago, Sydney was going to run out of rain supplied water..... hasn't happened, 10 yrs ago, my front yard would be under water by now.... nope, no 30 cm ocean level rise yet.. 10 yrs ago, the aussie ski fields would be lucky to have a mtre of snow over its entire season now, we already have 100 cm snow this season, and its only a few weeks old...
...Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting off the (give me strength!) "big" announcement that will reveal "all" until Sunday - after Parliament has risen, so she won't have to face debate in the House - pretty well says that it will be a total can of worms.
Has anyone asked yet how the attendant at the servo will differentiate between Joe Private Citizen buying his exempt petrol and Bruce the Truckie/Tradie/Commercial Driver who's filling his private car to use it commercially?
Ahhh... I know how we'll do it... We'll employ a couple of thousand public servants to administer yet another dog's breakfast.
Has anyone asked yet how the attendant at the servo will differentiate between Joe Private Citizen buying his exempt petrol and Bruce the Truckie/Tradie/Commercial Driver who's filling his private car to use it commercially?
Ahhh... I know how we'll do it... We'll employ a couple of thousand public servants to administer yet another dog's breakfast.
Andy,
That 1km description eg, BRILLIANT!!
That is a good way of explaining to the ignorant and brainwashed masses who've bought into this man made global warming propaganda campaign exactly how minute our contribution to CO2 production is and how we are willing to commit "unilateral economic suicide" in order to think we are actually helping save the world.
God help us all if that is the case.
I read a scientists example years ago saying if the atmosphere was a 100 story building in height, mans total CO2 production would be the thickness of the linoleum on the ground floor.
Here are some links for those who haven't yet been brainwashed, a lot of good reading herein--
http://intelligentessays.********.co...ropaganda.html
Enter the word -" b l o g s p o t " in the above url where the asterisks are. Dont know why this site changes it and wont let that word even print out in this sentence.
Global Warming Petition Project
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense
ICECAP
Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax? An editorial by James A. Peden
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense
That 1km description eg, BRILLIANT!!
That is a good way of explaining to the ignorant and brainwashed masses who've bought into this man made global warming propaganda campaign exactly how minute our contribution to CO2 production is and how we are willing to commit "unilateral economic suicide" in order to think we are actually helping save the world.
God help us all if that is the case.
I read a scientists example years ago saying if the atmosphere was a 100 story building in height, mans total CO2 production would be the thickness of the linoleum on the ground floor.
Here are some links for those who haven't yet been brainwashed, a lot of good reading herein--
http://intelligentessays.********.co...ropaganda.html
Enter the word -" b l o g s p o t " in the above url where the asterisks are. Dont know why this site changes it and wont let that word even print out in this sentence.
Global Warming Petition Project
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense
ICECAP
Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fact or Hoax? An editorial by James A. Peden
Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting off the (give me strength!) "big" announcement that will reveal "all" until Sunday - after Parliament has risen, so she won't have to face debate in the House - pretty well says that it will be a total can of worms.
Has anyone asked yet how the attendant at the servo will differentiate between Joe Private Citizen buying his exempt petrol and Bruce the Truckie/Tradie/Commercial Driver who's filling his private car to use it commercially?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, to secure the grant monies, certain "scientists" with agendas will frighten the pants off Joe Public by dishonestly linking particulate pollution with increases in certain gasses, dishonestly skewing projections and "loading" computer programs to ensure that "modelling" produces the answers which keep the grant monies flowing.
Given every, and I mean every, credible climate scientist says it is happening, why wouldn't you believe them? This is flat earth stuff.
Andy,
That 1km description eg, BRILLIANT!!
That 1km description eg, BRILLIANT!!
It makes no attempt to demonstrate the effect of each of the gasses on the atmosphere, nor the significance of them.
Useless ....
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
Given every, and I mean every, credible climate scientist says it is happening
Climatologists Reject Media Claims of Global Warming Consensus - by Alan Caruba - Environment & Climate News
On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.
Scientists Disagree
While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.
Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."
Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.
Scientists Disagree
While each of the above claims from non-scientists received significant media coverage, leading climatologists spent the month of June rebutting such proclamations.
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, sent a letter to the editor of USA Today directly refuting its claim. "Your editorial ... claim[s] the global warming debate is over. Not so," wrote Singer.
Singer wrote, "Sea level will continue to rise by only seven inches per century as it has for thousands of years no matter what we do or what the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says. And temperatures in the next 100 years will likely rise by less than one degree F--not exactly a catastrophe."
Added Singer in a subsequent letter to the Canadian media, "Thousands of scientists from many countries now fully understand that Kyoto and other efforts to control human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are ineffective and entirely unfounded scientifically.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Given every, and I mean every, credible climate scientist says it is happening, why wouldn't you believe them?
I and many others are still waiting to be convinced one way or the other with a reasoned debate and some actual evidence. So far I have only heard one scientist who can explain (with science) the non existence of man made climate change and none who can actually provide testable evidence to support it.
All too often the climate change scientists (sic) are quick to point out that anyone with a contrary view is in the employ of 'big business', when they themselves are in the employ of organisations with a vested interest in the acceptance of climate change.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least one major university's first year scientific ethics course is using Climate Change theory as an example of how not to publically debate a scientific theory. A lot of people have been left confused, sceptical and angry. Compared to the way the Sagan Group handled the Nuclear Winter theory (and they were advocating nuclear disarmament at the height of the Cold War 
), the hysteria, brow beating and carry-on has been appalling.
When scientists pretend to be pollies and pollies pretend to be scientists, the whole thing's bound to get messy. Religious-style fervour should have no place in scientific debate. There's been far too much of it, and IMO that sort of behaviour has turned a lot of people against the whole theory.
), the hysteria, brow beating and carry-on has been appalling. When scientists pretend to be pollies and pollies pretend to be scientists, the whole thing's bound to get messy. Religious-style fervour should have no place in scientific debate. There's been far too much of it, and IMO that sort of behaviour has turned a lot of people against the whole theory.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FinallyTheTruth, you say:
Parliament will not sit for five weeks after the "details" are announced on Sunday.
However, I agree with your following comment - "What's the rush?"
So why not wait until after the next election - AS PROMISED?
Then, if elected with a carbon (dioxide) tax as your Party's major policy platform (as it has become for Labor, despite their leader promising, six days before the last election, that "there will be no carbon tax under a government oi lead".
I supposed I should close in saying "welcome back, RedT."
There will be weeks of parliamentary debate. What's the rush?
However, I agree with your following comment - "What's the rush?"
So why not wait until after the next election - AS PROMISED?
Then, if elected with a carbon (dioxide) tax as your Party's major policy platform (as it has become for Labor, despite their leader promising, six days before the last election, that "there will be no carbon tax under a government oi lead".
I supposed I should close in saying "welcome back, RedT."
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
Yes, I thought that all sounded very familiar but, given past history, didn't want to inflame things by pointing it out. The mods have a very short fuse nowadays 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Cooda, I suspect they'll do a repeat of their past performance and drop aq few posts guaranteed to upset the moderators and Bob's yer uncle - thread binned. (A bit like the recent banning of Christopher Monkton in the noncyber world.)
This bloke's a Brit and speaks about the UK, but the people he's referring to are the soul mates of those who still support Gillard despite everything she's (not) done since 2007.
This bloke's a Brit and speaks about the UK, but the people he's referring to are the soul mates of those who still support Gillard despite everything she's (not) done since 2007.