Forums

Australian

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
secong coming.
28 Nov 10 23:31
Joined:
Date Joined: 31 Aug 07
| Topic/replies: 4,091 | Blogger: secong coming.'s blog
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf


i find it amazing how each and every scientist FUNDED by governments all agree that climate change is real yet when they retire and no longer funded seem to change their tune..........why is that so professor?

bob and his loonies have convinced foolya joolya,wombleoz and her (soon to be backstabbing) mates that we need this tax............ biggest con job of ALL TIME well maybe 2nd biggest after the church rort of extracting money from the gullible in return for belief in a being which no one has EVER SEEN

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 137  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 137 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,453
By:
secong coming.
When: 29 Nov 10 00:26
fark you got me first answer!
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 29 Nov 10 07:54
LaughLaughLaughLaughJudge
By:
wombleoz
When: 29 Nov 10 10:00
Reducing pollution would be a bad thing because.......


Answers welcome
By:
Monday mike
When: 29 Nov 10 11:28
Climate Change has been happening since dinosaurs time.
What do we do get back in the trees and eat bananas again.
By:
wombleoz
When: 29 Nov 10 12:01
Pollution Mike, ignore climate change - which you obviously don't believe in - would we better off if we polluted less???
By:
Aussie Punter
When: 29 Nov 10 12:22
Nothing wrong with a pollution tax on buisness Womble...but carbon trading on markets...please ...the next bubble
By:
lazza
When: 30 Nov 10 06:17
I know it's not true.....Theres no markets up on the next ice age yet ffs LaughLaugh
By:
pxb
When: 30 Nov 10 06:45
Carbon Dioxide isn't pollution. It's a colourless odourless gas that is plant food. Without carbon dioxide every plant and animal on Earth would be dead.

The vast sums spent on reducing carbon dioxide would be much better spent on reducing pollution, protecting the environment, providing clean water to the developing world, etc. All of which I would be in favour of.

Calling carbon dioxide, 'carbon pollution' is dishonest. You could just as well call it 'oxygen pollution', but that would sound ridiculous.
By:
Thebas
When: 30 Nov 10 07:19
lol pxb ... i like it ...

and as we know ... oxygen pollution ... or oxidisation ... is what eventually will kill us ... that is ...  if the rest of the sh!t that could happen to you ... doesn't do it first Grin
By:
Kye
When: 30 Nov 10 07:31
I don't think a price on carbon will actually cut emissions rather it will just force up prices a little (like a tax!)

Given what Aust does will have practically no effect on climate change (whether it exists or not) then i reckon our Gov'ts should just concentrate on providing some tax/rebate incentives for clean energy & perhaps making our air cleaner by getting some cars/trucks off the roads. How about providing cheap efficient subsidised public transport for a start.
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 30 Nov 10 07:39
This Carbon Tax runs against every damn principle that I hold dear : support for smaller government, lower taxes, support for families, encouragement of free enterprise, an orderly society and reward for effort.

Labor's "Carbon Tax" plan (if you could call it a plan) violates all of these principles.

This tax will change the way our country operates.

It will affect every single one of us—and for what?

For no environmental benefit whatsoever.

That is the crux of all of this.

Why would we put ourselves through this pain when it will not make any meaningful difference to the climate/planet?

A Carbox Tax simply offers no meaningful benefits but will impose very REAL and HUGE costs.

Nothing more than a socialist-wealth-redistribution scheme imo.
By:
Thebas
When: 30 Nov 10 07:44
a govt running out of money ... always needs to (a) invent a new tax (b) increase an existing one

truth is the common drinkers, smokers & gambler's ain't got much more to give ... so they're diversifying

this one would open up a whole new ball game fiscally (and yes, it stinks)
By:
Thebas
When: 30 Nov 10 08:32
i believe it too judge ...
By:
wombleoz
When: 30 Nov 10 11:11
so nobody believes the scientists - interesting, money obviously takes priority, which is a bit sad really

put a price on anything and the you'll reduce it
By:
Aussie Punter
When: 30 Nov 10 12:54
I think you'll find it's the balance of CO 2 pxb...picture a locked car filling up with Co 2 ....everything dies...

Basic example but picture on a planetary scale...
By:
secong coming.
When: 30 Nov 10 20:10
so nobody believes the scientists - interesting, money obviously takes priority, which is a bit sad really

womble you obviously didnt read the link....nobody is believing the scientists because they can fudge the figures to makes things look however they want to - and why do they do so? because the pay cheque keeps arriving in the mail.
ie: justifying their own existence

unfunded scientists and retired ones all tip the bucket....FACT

read al gore sacking all the non believers only followers allowed to work in this dept, wake up womble its a huge scam

global warming is now conveniently called climate change, the planet isnt warming anymore than at any time over the last million or so years.....brisbane has just recorded its first november without going over 30degrees for a very long time and the poms are at minus 20 in some parts....global warming huh? you fall hook line and sinker for the con job....
By:
secong coming.
When: 30 Nov 10 20:12
Nothing more than a socialist-wealth-redistribution scheme imo.

HAVE TO AGREE 100% JEZ
By:
wombleoz
When: 30 Nov 10 20:35
spot on AP

I've said it before, i don't agree with the extreme science but i also don't agree with the conspiracy theories about all scientists being dodgey and out to con us to get all our money [smiley:crazy]

Tony Windsor runs the best argument I'd suggest - what is the price if the anti brigade are wrong???  Compared to the price, a bit of money, if they are right.
By:
AFL
When: 30 Nov 10 20:35
The Scientist's got it right about GOD,
I'm tipping they've got this one right also.Devil
By:
starofthemagi
When: 30 Nov 10 20:46
well if people didnt smoke cubans it would help.........IMO.
By:
secong coming.
When: 30 Nov 10 23:12
sotm is right [smiley:crazy]

and tony windsor puhhhhhhlease the guy is a complete farkwit....

cost few dollars womble?
for what?
what aussies may do will not make any difference whatsoever
By:
secong coming.
When: 30 Nov 10 23:18
what is the price womble , we are just a speck in the life of the planet, 1 asteroid and were all gonski or maybe the nth koreans may blow the entire human race up and were worried about something that is unproven with dodgyness abounding GET REAL
why did foolya say no carbon tax prior to election?
dirty stinking no good lying labor cesspit slime doesnt give a flying about anyone other than POWER and MONEY for her mates.. repeat NOTHING ELSE

jez is 100% on the money
By:
logroller
When: 30 Nov 10 23:56
CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[5] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[6]

pxb sounds pretty toxic to me....i think the fuss is about ever increasing levels, the baby boomers have got a lot to answer for about the state in which they will leave this planet for the next lot that comes along
By:
Hal
When: 30 Nov 10 23:57
Betfair causes Global Warming *



* As per review commissioned by Racing NSW
By:
ta1
When: 01 Dec 10 00:44
made up scam, by people looking to make work for themselves.
how do they explain the non stop rain we been having in Melbourne,. absolute scam.
By:
Monday mike
When: 01 Dec 10 02:12
All these climate change scientists are in the mid 80s and retired.  They don't drink they don't gamble they don't smoke, they have to do something.  Climate change is there but sensationalised in my humble opinion.
By:
Back High Lay Low
When: 01 Dec 10 02:30
Late 90's i was working in Fiji for a local canoe manufacturer, it was around the time concerns about global warming started gaining alot of media attention.

I remember one day raising the issue with the Fijian i worked for, i suggested he'd be under water in another 30 years.
He looked at me with a toothy grin and said in his pigeon english "me don't worry, more water mean i sell more canoe".

You lot could learn alot from his positive attitude
By:
Back High Lay Low
When: 01 Dec 10 02:43
possibly
By:
starofthemagi
When: 01 Dec 10 04:36
bet he didnt grin too much when tsunami hit,
or did he switch to making lifeboats ??
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 07:22
secong, you can't ask wombleoz logically questions - he just won't respond to those.  Laugh
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 07:24
logical
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 07:48
wombleoz and his fellow watermelons within the Greens love new taxes and the ever-crumbling  "climate change" case is the newest pursuit for the left wing. [smiley:crazy]

It's amusing to watch the goal posts continue to shift on the entire argument, that is, for the moment called, climate change. Laugh

This dangerous idea of a carbon tax will impose higher costs for everyone (and warm the hearts of socialist comrades like wombleoz by redistributing wealth and continue to control our behaviour)........Cry

.....and what will this monumental TAX scam achieve, environmentally, you ask?

Absolutely, nothing.  Thats right, nothing.  Shocked
Maximum economic pain for zero environmental gain.


Why deceive people into believing a carbon tax is some magic formula for solving a problem that doesn't exist?

Finally, over the past 12 months, more and more people (as the brazenly fudged numbers and deceitful nonsense about current record levels of carbon are exposed) are questioning the credibility of this great big hoax!
By:
Joel
When: 01 Dec 10 07:52
And do you have proof that this problem doesn't exist?
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 08:31
I can't see why the country should be slugged with a carbon tax with 1) its environmental impact being fkn ZILCH and 2) with the point of taxing carbon broadly being to reduce emissions and help ease a problem that is based on wonky 'n' shonky science, fudged figures & calculations and harmful fanatical-left-wing ideology.

Julia Gillard before the election said no carbon tax.

Now, its full-steam-ahead for a carbon tax with Bob Brown, Lee Rhiannon, wombleoz and all the rest of the fkn watermelons leading the way, ffs
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 08:42
We've heard the rhetorical nonsense from Al Gore and alike.

This fully fledged, left wing CON is now being unravelled and finally being seen for what it really is.....

A brazen ideological TAX grab.

.....you hear the nonsense spouted when you DARE question this grab for cash.....? Laugh

The moral crusaders shout "don't you care about the planet?"
........."whats wrong with reducing pollution?".

If this was about the environment, the SCIENCE would be clear and succinct and the ANSWER would not be an ineffectual tax on EVERYTHING.
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 08:50
Nothing like a crisis, disaster or pending-tragedy and the opportunity to tap into a new revenue stream to rally the COMRADES LaughLaughLaugh

The skys ALWAYS about the fall in.

And you guessed it.

The answer -  PAY MORE TAX
We know best.  Trust us.  This is for your own good.



LaughLaughLaugh

Fair dinkum
By:
Aussie Punter
When: 01 Dec 10 12:19
Jez, politics aside if you can...as I am the political equivalent of Switzerland as stated before...

World economics is set under the notion ( and you here this sprouted everyday by buisness leaders) of continuous economic growth where resources are unlimited ...well that is the general model....

Do you think that their has to be a new economic model developed where the underlying princple has to be economics (trade,production,energy etc) that underlying assumptions have to be limited resources and at times negative growth?
Obviously assuming technology will continuously improve productivity and resource management relative to population growth and unsustainable levels.

Assuming their is 60% truth in the science... what way is their to make the world move to clean renewable energy...and by that I mean...the major energy companies....how do you transfer society into a clean energy,pollution future ?

Important to note here China already has whole cities running on renewables (Solar,Wind etc ) in their trials....

The Chinese know ...why else would they bother..and this is a race of people continually thinking 100 years ahead in their planning...they have 39 streets on Aus at the moment...

For the record...I don't think the Carbon Tax is the way to go...due to some of the reasons you have mentioned....but the alternative approach ?

Cheers AP
By:
Thebas
When: 01 Dec 10 20:48
china relies on government to make these decisions (communist model) ... the west rely on business enterprise to make these decisions (capatalist model) ... taxation is the west's only way of encroaching on ... either their citiziens or their businesses pockets ...

since gambling is illegal in china (forget hk & macua regions) ... i'll stick with the wetsern model lol ... with all its inherent woes

and ps ... how come scientists only tell us what's wrong ... and not just fix it themselves ... i mean they're scientists ... i thought they were REALLY SMART  Laugh
By:
secong coming.
When: 02 Dec 10 01:29
yeah jez logical questions for womble unanswered - shoulda been a pollytishan....comrade or greenie???, silly me same thing [smiley:crazy]
Page 1 of 137  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 137 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com