T28D the last avgas I bought at YRED 10 days ago was $2.05/liter.

$2.15 at YSGE yesterday and I bet they do not make a fortune from it.

US$6 per USG is about AUD$1.52 here.......ahhh the same as mogas, we pay about 1/3 more than the US folk do.

.


Heh, BHP and Rio shareholders will be happy little vegimites knowing their reduced dividends will keep Bob Brown happy....


Glyn Lawcock, a Sydney analyst at UBS, wrote in a report dated June 22. The bank cut its estimates for profits at both BHP and Rio by 4 per cent for 2013, citing the impact of the mining and carbon taxes, which take effect on July 1.


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian





.

The June price for AVGAS at JT is 204.38 c per litre when I enquired last.

:ok:

Just today got a letter from my business' power company.

I had calculated a rise of 4.3c per kw/h. That equated to a 4.36 rise in my hourly rate on its own.

WRONG.
The letter states, that the rise is in fact 5.88 cents.
So now i gotta find that calculation and redo it.

Nice of them to mail me with plenty of time to work this crap out.....5 days to go ladies! :ugh:

Forking C U Next Tuesdays :mad::mad::mad::mad:

I'm not stressed by the Carbon Tax.

5 cents a litre * 35 litres an hour is about $1.50 an hour. Not a big deal.

Most years I fly about 120 hours, so say $200 a year.

Happy to do my bit for the environment.

That's where you have been duped peterc...

Does nothing for the environment whatsoever. Does do something for general revenue.

Until the banks start pumping the carbon price. Will you be happy to pay an extra $1000+ a year, ontop of a rising cost of everything else for the environment.

Remember the Carbon Tax is subsidised only for a few years. You are then paying full price with a price floor!!

And.....Its going to 'prevent'...WHAT???

:=:ugh:

It's pointless arguing here. People believe what they hear on talk-back-radio or internet chain emails, rather than peer-reviewed science and logic.

Putting a price on carbon usage will discourage people from using it. The Carbon Tax revenue can then be used to subsidise not polluting sources of energy, further encouraging reduced levels of carbon emission.

It's very basic Public Economics and this type of approach is recommended in relevant Economics text books.

The Carbon Tax is a big step forward to mitigate global warming trends and I fully support it.

peterc if you want to learn about "peer reviewed science" have a look at the Climate Change Debate thresd.

Juliar Gillard is going to make mincemeat of the economy over the next year by handing out cash to those who she percieves as potential voters. She should be sent back to Barry where she came from. Budget surplus!! Give me a break.....

.


Hmmm... i suspect someone might be havin a joke here, though i'll bite.

peterc005 perhaps yer can tell us where to find this "peer-reviewed science and logic" ?






.

P.....
If most of the rest of the world was doing it then I might agree but they are not and for those that are the figure is much less. There are plenty of well qualified scientists who take the opposite view ie that the human contribution to climate change is minimal. It is a tax and nothing more designed to claw back some money for government that has totally stuffed the economy. The only reason Oz did better during the gfc was because krudd blew all the Howard government's surplus now we are so far in debt that we will not fare anywhere near as well - brace yourself for it! The co2 tax will affect every goods or service you purchase bar none.
GAGS
E86

@Flying Binghi

Here is a good start (published by CSIRO):

Understanding Climate Change

Climate questions, science facts


.

&...

Peterc, even using your own logic you are contradicting yourself. It would seem you haven't been too 'discouraged' from using carbon, no? Rather hypocritical wouldn't you say? If you were serious you would be telling us how you are planning to reduce your 120 hours a year down to zero...

This is beside the point of whether it would actually do anything significant to affect 'global warming' anyway. :suspect:

peterc005 the two sites yer linked to i have seen before. Could you please show me where they cover the "peer-reviewed science and logic" ?


peterc005 perhaps this be the "peer-reviewed science and logic" backing up the CSIRO claims -

(Via the CSIRO link)
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds it is very likely that most of the observed global warming since the mid 20th century is due to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases"

Hmmm... how did the IPCC work it out...



Via Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric physicist and former Chief Research Scientist CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

"The science of disastrous global warming is far less settled than climate activists would have us believe. The high probability attached by the IPPC to its thesis of climate disaster is not the result of careful scientific analysis of theory versus experiment. Basically it derives from a set of people sitting round a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models..."


... models eh..:hmm:







.

I really need to get back to my work rather than get sucked into arguments with people over conspiracy theories.

Garth Paltridge's view is in a small minority. The accepted view of the CSIRO is what is published. It's not just the CSIRO, it's pretty much the same view of every relevant academic and government body that I've come across.

There is no point in arguing with someone ranting over conspiracy theories, nothing, not reason nor facts will change your view.

The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed. Not everyone will agree with it, but it is still good science.

.


"The science behind Climate Change and Global Warming is good, solid and peer-reviewed"

Well then peterc005 , where is this good, solid and peer-reviewed science ? Perhaps yer can provide an actual quote from the CSIRO links yer provided ?..:hmm:


In the meantime heres some interesting comments from "Professor Fritz Vahrenholt one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement and the director of RWE Innogy, one of Europe's largest renewable energy companies"

"Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause.

For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too..."


Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist - Telegraph







.