Brilliantly put Eco ! (-;
Greens-Labour Agreement
(60 posts) (15 voices)-
thatmosis
MemberWhat I am saying is that we, that being my wife and myself made a concious decision to be self sufficient not to appease the Greens but because we saw that future cost would have been prohibitive for us to lead the lifestyle that we are accustomed to and I am being proved correct.. We paid for it all ourselves and although clearing some bush we are also planting 50 gum trees a month to facilitate creating a koala preserve. The crux of the matter is that if people are so fired up about saving the planet then let them lead by example and do what we have done out of our own pockets and not expect the Government and more importantly the Tax Payer to foot the bill. Its easy for people to say "save the planet" but when it comes down to it they do nothing unless subsidised by the Government or forced too.
The onus is squarely on the Climate Change Faithful and not the Deniers as the CCF are the ones that want the Government to Tax the Australian people not the Deniers. This is typical of the CCF as when forced to do something they turn it around and make out they are the good guys. If you are so sure of yourselves then prove it 100% or as I said get off the bandwagon.
We are clean and green and mighty mean but not idiots.Posted Monday 13 Sep 2010 @ 4:40:32 am from IP # -
cool at home
MemberAs an individual I can see your point of view, Thatmosis. As a parent who knows my children will have to deal with whatever mess this and previous generations leaves behind, I just can't.
If people want designer denims, they can just pay for them without anyone else's help. End of discussion.
If they want basic food, land and water - and human activities beyond their control have or will stop these from being appropriately available - that's a completely different story.
Do you think I should just tell my kids that the earth they will inherit is their problem and theirs alone?
This is not an argument about YOU and ME getting our needs met, nor about 'optional extras'. It is about future generations and those in vulnerable locales.
Posted Monday 13 Sep 2010 @ 10:19:53 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberThatmosis - Good on you for your efforts, and thankyou for doing it.
I think you are correct that the people who strongly support the goals of a movement should act as strongly as they can towards those goals themselves. 'Can' requires knowing 'what'. One of the issues with climate change response and adaptation is that so many people can't see _what_ they can do while not exposing themselves to an unreasonable risk (as subjective as that is).
If the amount of time, money and energy that has been spent on prolonging the debate had been spent on education and the provision and presentation of options, we would see far broader movement. Ditto for the way that flaws in response plans are catastrophised and revelled in by the 'business as usual' winners.
Once the momentum turns, the perceived risk will reduce.The price on carbon steps over the debate and just makes it a fact of life that businesses will respond to and provide more sustainable options and less unsustainable ones (although we will have to weather the storm of greenwash and attempted perversion that will initially ensue.)
Posted Monday 13 Sep 2010 @ 1:18:24 pm from IP # -
I think good people whatever their political persuasion are entitled to their view. People like Bob Brown who founded both the Greens and the Bush Heritage organisation are not unlike many contributors to this forum. Bob puts his money where his mouth is and whether you agree or not he sets an example that a lot more politicians could or should follow. Having one seat out of 150 in the house of reps is unlikely to see many of the Greens policies see the light of day. Anyway the election is well an truly over at last so the rest of us can get on with our lives.
Founding patron Dr Bob Brown started Bush Heritage back in 1991. They currently own and manage 32 reserves throughout Australia covering over 947 000 hectares. These reserves are safeguarding over 242 vegetation communities, of which at least 83 are threatened. More than 3,200 plant and animal species have been recorded so far, including at least 250 plant and 195 animal species that are listed as threatened.
Posted Monday 13 Sep 2010 @ 9:40:04 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberIts unfortunate that some of the problems that have occured during the last couple of years have done so because of the "Green" approach by Councils and Governments to get on the bandwagon. Bob brown might have had the best of intentions but unfortunatelty it has either been highkacked or misused to force people to comply with ridiculous policies. Take the recent and not so recent fires in Australia that have wiped out hundreds of homes and killed many people. The fact that Council and State/Federal laws precluded landowners form clearing around their homes led in part to this devastion. The one man that did clear and was fined had his house left alone by the fires whilst all around him the other houses burned. This stupid set of circumstances occured because some twerp in the Capital city who's only only knowledge of the bush was going to a Park occassionally decided that clearing trees was a no no. We have the same problem here where certain parts of my property are classed as Pink Zones where I am not even allowed to pick up a stick or a rock. When I questioned the placement of this zone I was informed that they had done it from aerial maps and satellite photos that showed this was a habitat. Got news for them, nothing grows or lives there as it is decomposed granite and only noxious weeds and introduced non native trees are there. I can have it rezoned but it will cost me and even if I dont win the rezoning I still lose the money. This is yet another example of the Green movement forcing laws onto people that have little or no validity. I clear what I want and replace the crap with natives and refuse to be intimidated or coerced by stupid people making stupid laws to appear Green for votes.
Posted Monday 13 Sep 2010 @ 11:33:09 pm from IP # -
bristan
MemberI am prompted to comment in regard to the global warming discussion going on in this forum as it seems to be very one sided and pro greens party which does not reflect the opinion of a very large proportion of the population. I am mostly in agreement with the views expressed by thatmosis. As "science" is quoted largely by the man made global warming alarmists, I would also like to go down that path .Carbon dioxide levels are around 390 parts per million and are increasing at about 1.9 parts per million per year. Levels of CO2 around 500m years ago were as high as 7000 part per million. (wiki co2 concentration). It is strange that although over the past ten years or so the carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise at the same rate, the temperature has actually gone down over the same period. Where is the linear relationship? To my mind there must be other vastly more significant factors affecting the climate.
While I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it will cause some warming, I am of the opinion that global warming due to mans contribution is not a significant threat in the short term. The temperature has only risen by one degree over the last 100 years and this is not even noticeable.
The world is already starting to convert to alternative energy so I can't see any reason to accelerate this process with all this green hysteria. Alternative energy should gradually take over as most people would see that we would not want carbon dioxide levels to rise too much in the long term and it is good insurance to preserve the status quo as far as atmosphere is concerned.
It is also interesting that no one mentions that as CO2 levels rise, plants will grow much better and consequently take up much more of the CO2 from the atmosphere, thus starting a balancing cycle. I have also read that the ocean contains much more C02 than the atmosphere and as the levels go up, more will be taken up by the ocean. We could also ask where did this carbon come from in the first place? It seems to me that it was originally taken from the atmosphere by plants which became the coal seams and through other organisms became our oil deposits. It may well return to the atmosphere by natural process as coal seam is exposed to the air it will eventually catch alight and burn away. Similarly with shifting of the earth plates oil and gas could be released. As humans we do tend to think we are the most important part of nature, however we really are very insignificant.
I would also like to add that a carbon tax would probably end up like the tobacco and alcohol taxes and be counter productive. Those taxes don't stop anyone drinking or smoking. Governments become dependent on the revenue and consequently are reluctant to actually take any measures which really do stop those activities. A carbon tax will be a revenue stream for the government which would be a disincentive to it reducing carbon emissionsPosted Tuesday 14 Sep 2010 @ 12:50:26 am from IP # -
The only hysteria I see is from the minority group of climate change deniers. The big business, media and mining interests whose only agenda is to maximise profit at the expense of everything else.
The fact is that without science there would be no coal mining, newspapers or solar modules for that matter. The computer and internet connection you are using relies 100% on science. If you think scientists are all wrong then turn it off and avoid driving, going to hospital, watching Tv or just about everything else science has produced.
Try living without scientific advances and you will find you won't last long.
Good article here.
Posted Tuesday 14 Sep 2010 @ 1:27:05 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberRockabye you still havent shown 100% proof of Man Made Global Warming but fallen back on the old standbyes as usual to denigrate anybody that doesnt agree with your one sided view of life. What you see is actually people questioning the lop sided views of the CCF and the misinformation being force fed to our children through 'education' where only one side of the arguement is ever discussed and surprise surprise its just happens to be the Greens and the CCF. This is why people are starting to ask questions that the Greens and the CCF arent able to answer except in broad terms with heaps of maybe's and perhaps. No conclusive evidence is put forward at the moment for either side of the arguement but the hysteria has mainly been on the CCF side as they valiantly try to coerce the Government into accepting their stance regardless of the science or facts.Proof positive is required, nothing else matters.
Posted Tuesday 14 Sep 2010 @ 7:59:21 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberBristan - Observable increase in the size of the ocean dead zones due to acidification, the measured thinning of crustacean shells, the recorded migration of plant and animal species to higher altitude and latitude (for the species that can move fast enough and have somewhere to move), the greater than 1degC warming in Pacific equatorial regions, the expansion/rise of the sea levels .... how is the change in temperature not noticeable other than by your personal perception with a 18~23 degC comfort range and a further +/- 10 degC easy tolerance?
You are correct that the atmosphere has been much richer in CO2 and higher temperature, and the world continues, but if it returns to that the eco-system will support the similar creatures that existed then, which did not include analogues of us.
There is no linear relation, there are obvious and not so obvious correlations as the system shifts and adjusts and reaches new thresholds.
The ocean does hold a vast quantity of CO2, and the partial pressure of concentration will force more in but (as with your favourite fizzy drink) the rising temperature will decrease its capacity to hold the gas in the liquid. The surface and subsurface currents and temperature differentials are so complex that getting a sense of what is really happening can only be done with massive amounts of data.
Yes the carbon is coming from coal and oil that will likely find it's way to the surface over the next few million years. But as to our insignificance, the unpronounceable european volcano emitted 1/2 the CO2 that the flights which were grounded would have emitted.
Thatmosis - While I think your 100% is unreasonable and makes no sense for something which requires at least a risk based decision (What insurance policies do you have?) enacted in sufficient time to reduce the impact of the predicted outcome, I'm willing to seek the evidence as you request it. But to do that, I'd need to know what authority/qualification/experience/source you will accept as credible.
BTW: Just for the sake of openness, do you have any vested interest or affiliation with any organisation that benefits from the delay of public acceptance and support of a driven shift to renewable/sustainable energy and society (excluding the general prediction of federal financial ruin)?Posted Tuesday 14 Sep 2010 @ 10:42:03 am from IP # -
bristan,
you wrote the word science as "science". I suppose this means 'so called science'.
What science do you relate to when you talk about what happened 500 million years ago? So some science is true and some is not; and you decide which one is right?And things are not as simple as you describe them. Not even increased CO2 levels will just be beneficial for plants. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.htm
Your thoughts about the uselessness of alcohol and tobacco tax is interesting. But at least these taxes are providing funds to deal with some of the damage done by these drugs. But would we have less drinkers and smokers without tax?
The problem with acceptance or not acceptance of climate change is not if you or I are right or not. The problem is that the process is accelerating as we speak and will become more and more unstoppable. As humans we have no real sense for changes that are speeding up. Emotionally we always believe that changes are linear with time. But imagine you are sitting in a car that is racing down hill and keeps speeding up. At some point it will be wise to put your foot on the brake or the outcome will be disaster. Unfortunately this car is our earth and we've got only one.
Posted Tuesday 14 Sep 2010 @ 3:19:18 pm from IP # -
Those evil greens are at it already. In moves to honour a promise to the Greens to improve dental care in next year's Budget, the Gillard Government is also considering funding a dental treatment blitz to clear the 500,000-strong public waiting list for dental care.
Posted Tuesday 14 Sep 2010 @ 7:14:00 pm from IP # -
Benny
MemberThis is what I can't understand about climate change deniers. A huge group of the best climate scientists in the world - i.e. the ones who work in universities and organisations studying climate all the time, publishing peer reviewed papers that provide lots of scientific proof that they are the best way to explain changes in climate, publish a joint paper explaining why they think human produced CO2 is a big contributor to global warming. The papers/models explain how lots of other factors influence global temperature including volcanic emissions, sun activity, etc and that CO2 is only a part of the models. Then a few people not in this group, like a certain Qld geologist and an English Lord (who also has a cure for aids by the way) raise questions about the report/models and people very quickly believe everything these guys say rather than the huge group of scientists. Even when what they say and write in their books is shown to be completely false, they just refuse to change their publications. When mistakes were found in the IPCC reports, the IPCC acknowledged these and corrected them and the mistakes didn't change the fundamental conclusions.
I'm not going to try and argue with bristan or thatmosis as there's no way I could convince them with the conclusions they have already come to from the available literature. i.e. temp is not solely dependent on CO2 and no one claims it is. A 1deg change in global mean temp is a HUGE change - not insignificant. Just because CO2 has changed in the past for other reasons doesn't mean it can't change now due to human activity, mean temps vary so much from year to year, as well as having a longer term trend, that a 10 year trend is too short to be statistically significant, and as for not taking any action until its proven at the 100% level ! OK I got sucked in ...
Even Einsteins theories of relativity are not 100% proven - they fit everything we've tried so far but any scientist would allow maybe a 0.01% chance that a better theory will come along some time. If astronomers detect a comet and say there's a 95% chance that its going to hit earth and destroy all civilisation, should we ignore it until they say they are 100% sure ? Perhaps when its 2 days away and too late ?Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 5:19:50 am from IP # -
Eco
MemberHello thatmosis
You are right. We haven’t shown 100% that Climate Change is human enhanced. In fact I don’t know whether this is even possible. Unless we could find another Earth like planet and set up massive carbon dioxide generators and run the experiment over 50 to 100 years. But then that time frame would be too long anyway.
I imagine you may be quite a difficult person to convince about climate change (I don’t know you so this is only a guess - forgive me if I have gotten this wrong). I imagine that even if I got the whole IPCC panel to come to your house and try to convince you that human enhanced climate change is real I think that even they may struggle (not, may I say, because of lack of evidence). But say after many hours of talk and discussion they managed to convince you that there was a 50% chance of human activity enhancing climate change. This is less than the 100% proof that you request. So what would you do with that - reject it and any possibility of action because it is not 100%. But think about what this actually means. At 50:50 there are two possible equally likely outcomes. The first is that there is no human enhanced climate change – hooray, we can all celebrate and go on burning fossil fuel to our heart’s content (until peak oil kicks in – but that is another story). Or the alternative - massive global changes to temperature, sea level and consequent droughts, floods, displacement of people of epic proportions – you’ve heard the predictions. So basically in the 50:50 scenario its a flip of a coin. Are you really willing to gamble with the planet on a flip of a coin?
But what if the IPCC only managed to convince you that there is a one in six (16.7%) chance that climate change is being enhanced by human activity. It comes down to the same question: are you willing to leave the future of the planet up to a roll of a dice?
So I think your insistence that you have proof to 100% before anything is done is not sustainable. In any risk management scenario it is all about likely hood and consequences. You can have a scenario that is of low likely hood (way below 100%) but of high consequence and it is still worth doing something about it. So even if you believe that there is a small chance that humans are enhancing climate change the consequence of climate change are such that it would be still worth doing something about it. (I, of course, believe that the likelyhood is quite high which makes the decision to act easier for me.)
Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 5:38:49 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberI wouldn't believe a word the IPCC board uttered after seeing some of the supposed data ripped to shreds by competent scientist that don't have their snouts in the Climate Change trough. We had Climategate which laid low most of the supposed facts as fraudulent and you expect people to just go on trusting these morons. A couple of questions for the CCF-
1. Has the world in its millions of years of evolution ever suffered from a period of excessive heat and excessive cold?
2. Has this happened before the industrial revolution?
3. Is it likely to be a natural occurrence that is purely nature and not man made?
4. Is a Tax on CO2 going to significantly reduce the levels to 2000 levels or even yesterdays levels or is it a Tax for the sake of a Tax?
5. What minute amount of CO2 does Australia produce and feed into the world total?
6. If we are Taxed for this "crime" of CO2 emissions and somehow get to pre 2000 levels ( which I doubt) how long will it take the emerging countries to fill that void 10 fold?
As I have always stated I believe the world is warming but and a BIG BUT I don't believe that human activity is the cause and to date no person or persons have been able to conclusively say yes we have with irrefutable evidence not theory. As for leaving the future of the planet to the role of a dice its no different than the claims of the CCF that the Sky is Falling. Climate Change has gone from being a serious scientific subject to a religion based on a falsehood and promoted by those who have either an axe to grind or a hand in the till. Al Gore is one that comes to mind, all his wailing and gnashing of teeth and in the end it was all so he could make a buck and didn't the gullible fall for that hook line and sinker. A Tax on nothing for nothing is criminal no matter which side of the arguement you are on.Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:14:52 am from IP # -
This video from scientist Rod Dunbar discusses recent data from various oceans and talks about 'normal' global warming and recent warming attributable to man made CO2. Spend 18 mins watching it before you reply. I think you will like it.
http://blog.ted.com/2010/09/13/discovering-ancient-climates-in-oceans-and-ice-rob-dunbar-on-ted-com/
Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 8:42:29 am from IP # -
Eco
MemberRe Thatmosis post:
A1 - Absolutely. But doesn't mean that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere and climate change can't also be the result of human activity - just where do you think all that carbon from burnt fossil fuels is going.
A2 - Absolutely - see above.
A3 - Not likely - See above and see link below.
A4 - That's what economists tell us. It is a well known economic theory of elasticity of prices. Price goes up, usage goes down and the higher prices make other clean technologies competitive.
A5 - A small but not completely insignificant given our small population. And it is a very poor arguement to say because we are small we should do nothing. We could not argue for the larger producer countries to decrease their emissions if we did nothing. We have to contribute the the global effort. And there other countries that are doing a lot more than us so it is not as though we would be out there on our own.
A6 - See A5However I am sure others could answer these questions much better than me - including people on this forum. However perhaps the Climate Scientists of Australia can answer most of your questions - http://climatescientistsaustralia.org.au/science/faqs.html. (Good FAQ pdf from Brett Parris linked off page - http://www.climateworksaustralia.com/Q_and_A.pdf.)
Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 11:05:36 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberI haven't read all these posts verbatim, so I apologise if I'm repeating what has been previously said, however my point of view is that I do not have a position on the climate change debate. Instead I have chosen to have an open mind on both sides.
That said, I have no doubt that we are currently blessed with the technology to fundamentally change our dependancy on fossil fuels. Is this a good thing......my bloody word it is. If we have the option of living in a grossly poluted world or living in a clean green renewables powered world, I know what I prefer.
Climate change? It's but one piece of a big picture!
Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 11:45:28 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberswanning it
I second your position, with one previsor: Seeing that we have the technology for a clean climate, why not make a equitable future and one we can share with the poor.
ie Kill two birds with one stone......
bristan & thatmosis
It seems your views on climate change will continue to be a circular problem, unless you can change your perspective to see anybody else's view. Your arguments are completely relevant only to your understanding, and despite many presentations from various forum participants, over quite a broad range of issues, I have yet to see one comment from the CCF been accepted, as a possible truth. Stubbornness is not a virtue of enlightenment.Maybe a more structured approach to the discussion would be in order, and a equal and adequate response through links or extensive explanations, specifically of your perspectives on the subject would be more productive. Until now there has been little else than personal views and attitudes towards CC, government etc. with virtually no convincing evidence (or links to such) apart from your own statements. Your insistence on proof that CC exists should be backed up with equal proof from your arguements that it doesn't exist. Otherwise the circular argument that ensures here, on this theme, is simply time consuming and tiresome.
I'm all for "productive" argumentation, and on that basis I have started another thread for the "facts" of Climate Changes deniers to be presented. Please make the effort, and show us CC "Faithful" the courtesy we provided you, with some third party evidence, links and substantial explanations, to enlighten us with your perspective on how climate change is a fallacy. The name of the thread is "The Climate Change Fallacy Facts".
Please feel free to start your own threads outlining your views, but otherwise I look forward to hearing some "new" perspectives on your positions.Hope to see you there...
Posted Wednesday 15 Sep 2010 @ 1:21:30 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberAs usual the answers were vague and virtually useless. I am quite open to real science and facts from both sides unlike the majority of the CCF who will not brook and dissension from sources that disagree with their beliefs. The question I posed warranted specific answers but all I got was gobblegook passed off as fact. Question 5 was specific but was treated with contempt as was question 6 because it goes to the core of the arguement that I have put forward. Is it reasonable to expect the Australian Public to be forced to pay a Tax for something that hasnt and cant be proven, will do nothing for the planet but will cause hardship for all as the prices of everything rise because of this TAX.All this Tax will do is give all the CCF's a warm and fuzzy feeling ,placate the Green voters but nothing for the planet. This Tax on nothing for nothing will make our businesses uncompetitive in the world market, cause businesses to shut down and increase unemployment whilst the rest of the world and especially the Emerging Countries continue on their merry way. It is unfortunate that several bodies that have come out on the side of Man Made Global Warming are either political entities or paid by Government and therefor suspect by association. I think that people should take your advice and look at both sides of the arguement and that means the CCF as well.
Posted Thursday 16 Sep 2010 @ 1:26:36 am from IP # -
thatmosis,
Could you please tell me what is "science" and what is 'real science'?
I am a scientist and I start feeling offended.And to your point 5 that Australia has only a small contribution:
Every single Chinese and every American has a very small contribution to the CO2 output. So if everybody, who's is contribution little, does hot have to contribute, nobody will.
Or in other terms: My Contribution to the Australian Tax income is a relatively tiny amount. Does that mean I can give up paying tax?What is your focus on contributions by countries anyway? Does it mean if China consisted of 200 countries with 20 million people each, you would give up comparing Australia and China?
Posted Thursday 16 Sep 2010 @ 6:24:13 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberReal science is science that is not clouded by external factors such as who pays the wages.Those that have their snouts in the trough are hardly likely to alienate the people who pay the bills are they. To do so would mean funds being diverted to another who gives the employer the answers they want. If you are a scientist then you know that if you dont perform as per expected funds soon dry up. Your second statement may have made sense when you concocted it but means absolutely nothing and still hasnt answered the question. I really dont care about China, America or even Botswanaland but what the effects will be to Australia if we go down this slippery slope and invoke a Tax on nothing for nothing except to swell the Government coffers. Answer the last 2 questions posed truthfully and without all the miscellaneous garbage that usually goes with it. Is that too hard to understand?
Posted Thursday 16 Sep 2010 @ 6:49:22 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberThatmosis - Please don't take my timing here as a response to your "is that too hard to understand".
1. Yes - With multiple causes. Some counter-intuitive.
2. Yes - I'm pretty sure we've only had this one industrial revolution in our millions of years of evolution
but then I'm not 100% sure, the middle-romans probably thought they were in one as well.
3. No (I'm assuming 'it' to be this current change in climate). While it is possible, which I've investigated as much as I can myself, of all the theories that I've seen proposed I've been convinced there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. (To respond on here with multiple sources to every theory would result in a book. If you list the ones you think likely I'll try to address them.)
4. It will reduce the rate of increase initially and establish a foundation that will enable a reversal and reduction of atmospheric levels. It will do this by biasing the market which is the only instrument that reaches all corners of our society, so will drive change by people continuing to make the same type of decision they do today (what's cheaper?) rather than having to study and understand the "information" provided with consumer items. (ie: New 'Lard' - 98% sugar free!! "... but I'm not losing weight!")
5. 1.28% from 0.3% of world's population.
6. Can't get you a figure on that prediction easily, but it's obvious that as they move towards our lifestyle a lot of CO2 will be pumped out unless replacement technologies are injected as their baseline of development. Fortunately China and India are working on that. And market forces are helping, as they produce sustainable goods to ship to us, they take advantage of them themselves.And I note Marius Kloppers' of BHPBilliton call today for the carbon price/tax format and value to be established ASAP with the quote "We believe that such a global initiative will eventually come, and when it does Australia will need to have acted ahead of it to maintain its competitiveness,"
Posted Thursday 16 Sep 2010 @ 1:24:41 pm from IP # -
Do you really mean that all scientists at universities do not practice real science, as they are at least partially state funded? Which scientist is not clouded by external factors? Newton for instance may not have had an issue to get funding, because he was rich and did not have to work for a living. But was he unbiased? He was rich. This made him automatically a member of the middle or even upper class with all their vested interests.
And with what you call taxes (on CO2 output), this is not money that will be burned. It is supposed to flow back into the economic cycle by either subsidizing low income earners ( I believe this regulation should make sure that they are not affected by a rise in energy cost, because they pay less taxes or get other compensations) or support industries and businesses that are more environmentally friendly. What's the problem?
On a different note, do all deniers read from the same book? There are always the same colourful and/or rude words being repeated again and again. let me just give a collection of your words in the above posts: "the Climate Change Faithful; get off the bandwagon; force people to comply with ridiculous policies; yet another example of the Green movement forcing laws onto people that have little or no validity; misinformation being force fed to our children through 'education' ;hysteria has mainly been on the CCF side as they valiantly try to coerce the Government into accepting their stance regardless of the science or facts; I wouldn't believe a word the IPCC board uttered, the supposed data ripped to shreds; their snouts in the Climate Change trough; expect people to just go on trusting these morons; the claims of the CCF that the Sky is Falling; Climate Change has gone from being a serious scientific subject to a religion based on a falsehood and promoted by those who have either an axe to grind or a hand in the till.; A Tax on nothing for nothing is criminal; all I got was gobblegook passed off as fact; do nothing for the planet but will cause hardship for all as the prices of everything rise because of this TAX; give all the CCF's a warm and fuzzy feeling; have their snouts in the trough; Answer the last 2 questions posed truthfully and without all the miscellaneous garbage that usually goes with it. "
Concluding from your language you are not a scientist and you do not have an idea what science is. So how can you evaluate the results of science?
This is maybe one of the problems that scientists have in communicating to the average population. Their language is more precise and not abusing. But their language is also not as colourful and noisy as yours.
Posted Thursday 16 Sep 2010 @ 1:36:11 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Membersun2steam
Es bleibt einfach der fall: Wer mist, mist, mist!!
I have tried to migrate the climate change "scientific conundrum" circulating here, to another thread so that we could have some productive discussion pro vs contra CC, but until now I have only succeeded in giving myself a migraine trying to shed some light on this persistent perception. But good on you for your continuing effort.Posted Thursday 16 Sep 2010 @ 5:00:44 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberNo I am not a scientist but a person who believes that a Tax that will impact on everything we consume should be at least based on irrefutable facts not theories. The old faithful that the lower paid will be compensated for any increase in costs is a furphy, just ask a pensioner who gets a pittance from the Government to pay for the increases in power, water, rates and the spirally cost of food and petrol. As for reading from the same book, no I dont think so just people who have seen the futility of a Tax on nothing for nothing and expressing their views which you as a CCF will of course ignore or ridicule.
The saving on CO2 for a year from any tax in Australia was estimated to be overtaken and increased in less than a week by the developing nations alone. How can people justify increasing the cost of living, the cost of doing business and the cost of our exports in these circumstances. Even if we banned all CO2 from Australia it would still make no difference to the levels as these to would be negated by other countries in a very short while. Have you ever worked on a boat where you have to throw the garbage overboard. Its advisable to test which way the wind is blowing first unless you want all that crap coming back on you and the same goes with CC. Its advisable to see how much Australia and its people will suffer before going out on a limb and introducing a Tax that could see the crap come back and hit us in the face. Do people honestly believe that any Government with a windfall Tax is going to use it for its intended purpose. It will be put into consolidated revenue and used for anything the Government wishes or squandered on useless policies that blow the budget again and again. As for my reference to a religion this is what a lot of people see now as the CCF deride anybody that disagrees with them much the same as people with high religious beliefs do to people who dont believe.Posted Friday 17 Sep 2010 @ 3:03:17 am from IP # -
LanceTurner
Key MasterGuys, this has all gotten way off topic and is just going around in circles. I'm going to close the thread if the pointless arguing persists. Have to ask though, why would climate change deniers want to be active in forums that clearly are part of an environmental group's website? Looks a lot like trolling to me...
Posted Friday 17 Sep 2010 @ 3:12:59 am from IP #
Reply
You must log in to post.