Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5455 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,455
|
By:
that's about the level of communication and dialogue that you can hold and exactly what i would expect from you
 |
|
By:
Ha Ha Ha ... a thread that's riddled with every Climate Change DENYING trick and full of lies to cast doubt
on Climate Change you only have to read the opening posts to understand that. Biggest joke thread on here. |
|
By:
the joke is on you mate ... sorry to say it ... you were so far up the deciever gillard's cl@cker that you would believe and defend anything from her ...
and that anything was ... her fake-for-the environment co2 tax (that she wished later in her memoirs ffs that she called a fake-for-the-environment trading scheme) that was four years ago with so much more data and info that has surfaced ... AND IS CONTINUING TO SURFACE ... it might be time to let go of the rort political schemes that in no way address any issue that you purport to care so much about you will not answer one simple question in relation to climate change whad'ya reckon ... tax or trade it ?  |
|
By:
Labor's policy worked. How's Abbott's policy going?
|
|
By:
You know him the Great Climate Change Believer.
|
|
By:
How is his policy not a rort?
|
|
By:
Labor's policy worked.
are you saying climate change has stopped ? |
|
By:
When you can get billions of our money ...for free......no compulsion to limit or drop your level of poison
into the enviornment. Money for nothing Now that's a rort. |
|
By:
How's Abbott's policy going?
|
|
By:
How is Abbott's Climate Change Policy going?
|
|
By:
You care so much for the enviornment you must be across his policy.
|
|
By:
Talking about who wont answer questions..................
|
|
By:
i have no confidence in any political plan regarding the environment
but are you saying one party's policy has stopped climate change ? or do you agree maybe that no one party political decision will have any effect |
|
By:
gimme time ffs ...
|
|
By:
Emissions dropped it didn't destroy the economy and Solar was gaining.
Now Abbott is destroying Sloar...and we have lost billions of investment in solar already because of the Climate Vandal Abbott. |
|
By:
im outa here
cheers.  |
|
By:
i knew it was all political with you AFL
i thought maybe at one level you had a genuine concern re the environment you push that point but must i repeat this party political bullcr@p just to have dialogue with you ffs you know fully well that it was the deceiver gillard who pulled the plug on the largest potential solar plan in WHYALLA the plan that would show us once and for all if a large scale solar power gird would work (19,000 homes & businesses) you know fully well it was gillard the deceiver who pulled the sloar rebate scheme SIX MONTHS EARLY your political RAMBLINGS are complete nonsense in my eyes and those ramblings make your concern for the environment seems as fake as gillard's and i was hoping that was not the case ... after 4 fkn years at this lol |
|
By:
see ya mate
|
|
By:
You spend 3 years with political attacks on Labor Climate Policy and continue them when Labor is no longer in
power and their Carbon Price no longer exists. But suddenly when Abbott is in Power and his disgusting Climate Change Policy which is actually DESIGNED TO DO NOTHING TO MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE you say tou have become Switzerland and are not political when discussing this subject. You refuse to discuss Abbott's and the Liberal Party Climate Change policy beyond you have no confidence in any party regarding this. How is Abbott's policy NOT A RORT ????? You spend 3 years telling us how Labor's policy is apparently a RORT ...so please tell us how Abbott's policy isn't a bigger rort. |
|
By:
i think the ETS in Europe would be seeing much better the results if the economies weren't so stuffed
there will be a global one in a few years so we'll see how that goes - but yes, you are right the bankers will screw us over, I'd argue that's not enough reason to not do it though AFL spot on, the carbon tax worked to reduce emissions |
|
By:
wombleoz
AFL spot on, the carbon tax worked to reduce emissions don't be fooled by randomness womble ... it has been reported every time you say this the issues that the brown coal mines in victoria were shut down for repair and that the business sector according to the AIG reduced the same % amount drawing the bow between that and the gillard co2 tax is simplistic and just wrong by the way greg combet claimed the same thing 7 weeks after introducing the co2 tax and one week before gillard the deceiver granted Gina approval for opening up a brand new coal mine in Alpha qld where their booty will be taken out through the great barrier reef .... and afl i know now you do not read one word of what is said and i don't believe either that you even read what you post yourself for an answer you only need to go back over the past 2 days postings between us .. no need to repeat what has been said you are a party political robot i am convinced the global issue is a global issue yet you cannot see it the solution to the global lclimate issue will be a scientific breakthrough IT WILL NOT BE A PARTY POLITICAL DECISION but you won't be able to see that i realise  |
|
By:
we'll know soon enough Thebas - there will be a global ETS before too long and don't be surprised is Abbott switches and backs it once it gets more support
|
|
By:
there will be an ETS ... sadly womble ..
and turnbull will be pushing it in the background for sure (google malcom's involvement with hih/fia .. and who bailed him out (after the royal commission) before it was to go to civil trial (only ckue is it's a global investment manipulative entity linked also with Al G) i say sadly for this reason when the global ETS is up & running .. citizens & politicians will then think we are doing 'something' yet the something that has to be done .. will go on the backburner as everyone will feel good & forget the issue and pretend like they have done soemthing for the planet they will essentially be fooled into thinking the next 50 to 75 years of trading co2 credits is doing 'something' and in 5 years maybe .. the methane issue will raise its head ... a lot of methane the result of natural gas (and coal to an extent) extraction .. but there are also random 'leaks' of methane (as we are currently finding out about in the USA/Rusia & Artic areas) but the major methane issue will be the rice paddies in China & India where (due to massive poluplation increases) these has been escalating hugely and adding to the greenhouse & climate probs maybe MOR SO than co2 itself (well certainly just from COAL) will they then determine that taxing/trading food & agriculture is the best way to 'do something' and then there's the ozone which is intimately linked to global climate (both forwards & backwards as in the ozone affects the climate and the climate also affects the ozone) and science is just finding this following information on ozone ... http://phys.org/news/2014-08-mysterious-source-ozone-depleting-chemical-baffles.html Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA However, the new research shows worldwide emissions of CCl4 average 39 kilotons per year, approximately 30 percent of peak emissions prior to the international treaty going into effect." CC14 levels are not enough to reverse the decreasing trend of ozone-depletion, but experts are still mystified as to where it is coming from. With no new reported emissions, atmospheric concentrations of the compound should have declined at an expected rate of four percent per year since 2007. "We are not supposed to be seeing this at all," said Qing Liang, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources." --- nothing in this ever expanding and changing climate science info is fully & finally 'settled' and the 'feel good' nature of the co2 credits trading trick ... will only allow things to get stagnate as the full scientific picture is put on hold for another half a century .. cause we are perceived to have 'done something' |
|
By:
Alan Jones on sky debating climate change
sickening scenes |
|
By:
we'll see how it all plays out Thebas - science will save us in the end imo
|
|
By:
wombleoz
science will save us in the end imo .. let's hope so mate .. the alternative banker's picnic is a sick joke on the citizens of the world |
|
By:
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
from page 1....4 years ago Thebas..nothing has changed let alone the temperatures...even the former head of Greenpeace tips the bucket... the global warming camp would have a lot more cred had it not had crackpots give out alarmist propaganda......no dams to ever fill again,100 year floods DAILY, entire contents of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and on it goes...... NASA findings are more holes in the warming picture BIGGEST RORT EVER  shame about the planet as no tax can EVER change the temperature of ANYTHING ffs |
|
By:
lol secong ... 4 fkn years crikey .. the good ol gillard days .. where deceipt was king (or queen)
the scientists won't find a solution until they abandon the continual repetitive science of using computer models to predict the future (when the models can't even correctly predict clouds or preceipitation - tho they are getting 'better' apparently) disband climate scientists immediately .. thank them for the 25 years of work identifying an issue .. and hire groups with the same pay packets to find solutions please .. what's the point of saying it'll get hotter (and wetter etc etc) when an answer is NOW required but hey .. until they the money machine moving they will sit and sit and salivate over the sovereign wealth stripping and redistributing ... that is ALL that is planned as we know it the planned ETS (on co2 - with next up methane & ozone taxation too possibly if they want to address the full issue .. yep the BIGGEST RORT EVER |
|
By:
Direct Action is better than no action at all, just - but paying polluters not to pollute is just giving our money to people to do what we should be making them do anyway
 Then millions on another inquiry and Hunt has already said they don't want an ETS anyway even if that's what it finds - what a joke As i say on the other thread WORST GOVERNMENT EVER |
|
By:
worst
you clearly don't remember that gillard person Womble  in one of the most humorous (and justifiable) actions ever performed by a sitting govt they ... disposed of the person who disposed of the person before her NONE of this by the electorate ... but by their own travesty of party surely you can see the absolute humour in this BOTH major political parties currently aim to address a plan for a 5% reduction in coal based greenhouse gases so any comment you or the left wing nutters make about who is right and who is wrong belongs on the nonsense thread which you alude to ---- here is a bigger picture of what other POLITICAL attempts to address a scientific problem have encountered makes Oz pollies look almost sensible https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/deep-rifts-remain-un-talks-091815192.html With a 2015 deadline looming large for a global pact on curbing climate change, six days of UN talks closed in Bonn on Saturday with delegates and observers deflated over a lack of progress. Rifts over responsibilities for galloping emissions of Earth-warming fossil fuels remain deeply entrenched, they said, preventing detailed negotiations on a new agreement. The meeting of senior officials in the former West German capital was meant to lay the groundwork for December's round of ministerial-level UN talks in Lima, where a draft of the deal must be outlined for adoption in Paris a year later. "We lost valuable negotiating time this week with open-ended discussions," he said -- a sentiment echoed by African and Arab countries, among others that had hoped for more detailed bartering. Countries remain divided on such fundamentals as the legal form that the 2015 agreement will take. We're leaving Bonn with not much more clarity than when we arrived on how we will get the key decisions needed in Lima to confront the threat of climate change," said Alden Meyer of the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists. Yet countries remain deeply divided on the fundamentals of whether the declarations should include rich countries' intended financial help to developing nations. "People are starting to panic a little" over the mountain of work still to be done, Meyer said. --- it's a dog's brekfast .. and will remain so .. while political parties within countries and then countries themselves among other countries try to work out a plan on ... WHO WILL PAY WHAT TO WHOM and which none of it if finally decided willl DO ONE THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT the ETS ... BIGGEST RORT EVER on unsuspecting citizens the world over |
|
By:
WHO WILL PAY WHAT TO WHOM
and which none of it if finally decided willl DO ONE THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT the ETS ... BIGGEST RORT EVER on unsuspecting citizens the world over i'll secong that!! |
|
By:
Palmer's Climate Lies Should Come As No Surprise
newmatildadotcom Where more truths are written than you would find in all the murdoch rags in the world combined. By Ben Eltham Once again backing away from a commitment, the PUP leader has announced support for direct action. His deal with Greg Hunt serves a personal interest but puts the Australian economy at risk, writes Ben Eltham The Abbott government has secured the likely passage of its Direct Action carbon policy through the Senate. The news comes as a result of an agreement reached yesterday between Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Palmer United Party leader Clive Palmer, for the PUP to support the bill with minor amendments. Once again, after tough talk and media stunts, Palmer has rolled over in the back rooms and done a deal in his own best interests. As the owner of several large coal and iron ore mines, Palmer has an obvious vested interest in ensuring a taxpayer-funded compensation plan for big polluters. As we've argued many times, Direct Action is a fraudulent policy that can’t possibly reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to our target of a 5 per cent reduction by 2020. What it will do is pay the biggest polluters in the country a total of $2.55 billion over the next six years. All for doing what everyone (except the most ardent climate denialists) agrees they must, if the world is to escape devastating warming: lower their fossil fuel pollution. The government claims the policy will spend $2.55 billion in reverse auctions to those firms that can promise the biggest reductions. This will be great for the bank balances of big polluters, but won’t do much to reduce Australia’s overall emissions. You can get an idea of just how little the government cares by reference to Hunt’s plans for those polluters who take advantage of the scheme to rapidly ramp up their emissions. He has no plans to punish rogue polluters. Hunt just expects everyone to play by the rules. After all, fining polluters for releasing greenhouse gases would look awfully like … a carbon tax. “Our intention is no, our budgeting is no, and that's because we think the firms will operate within it," Mr Hunt told Sky News on Thursday. The passing of Direct Action in this manner is Australian politics at its barrel-bottom worst. Everyone is lying. Hunt is lying when he says Direct Action will reduce emissions by enough to meet Australia’s 5 per cent target. So obviously will the policy fall short, the government has understandably decided not to bother commissioning any fresh modeling. No credible analyst believes Direct Action can achieve anything like the 5 per cent emissions reduction target we have signed up to. According to respected analysts RepuTex, Direct Action may be able to reduce emissions by 80 to 130 million tonnes at best. “This is equivalent to a shortfall of over 300 million tonnes for Australia to meet its 5 per cent emissions reduction target of 421 million tonnes by 2020,” RepuTex’s Hugh Grossman told The Australian. But even if Direct Action magically achieves the 5 per cent mark, the next round of international talks will see many countries push Australia for a bigger reduction by 2030 – perhaps 15 per cent, perhaps more. There is simply no way Direct Action can do this. In the manner of chancers everywhere, Hunt has doubled down on his rhetoric in recent weeks, ramping up the chutzpah to superlative levels. “Well, this is a scheme which is designed to last for 20 years, for 30 years,” Mr Hunt said in a press conference yesterday. “It is absolutely capable of providing for the long term.” Voters might be more confident in such predictions if the government itself had budgeted for the policy “for the long term.” Direct Action isn’t even fully budgeted for the medium term: while the headline budget is $2.55 billion, the forward estimates in Joe Hockey’s May budget provide only $1.15 billion to 2017. Clive Palmer is lying too. He put out a press release yesterday that read “Palmer Saves Emissions Trading Scheme”. Even in the reality-challenged worldview of Palmerama, this is a pretty impressive confection. Australia doesn’t actually have an emissions trading scheme to save: Palmer voted with the government to abolish it. Palmer is probably talking about his pet scheme for a “zero dollar” emissions trading scheme that would have a carbon price of zero until Australia’s major trading partners introduce their own schemes (presumably Europe is not a major trading partner). He secured a token concession from Hunt on this point, allowing the Climate Change Authority to research the zero-price ETS and report back. But Hunt is frank about the government’s attitude to such a proposal. “We have agreed to a review but our policy is crystal clear, we abolished the [carbon] tax and we're not bringing it back," Mr Hunt told the ABC this morning. Palmer is also trumpeting his success in saving certain climate agencies and initiatives like the Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Authority, both of which the government wants to abolish. It’s not much of a success. The last federal policy that is achieving any emissions reductions of note, the Renewable Energy Target, is hanging in the balance. Palmer has pledged to vote to keep the RET. On the other hand, he also pledged to vote against Direct Action, which he is now voting for. On recent form, anything Clive Palmer rules out one week is a good chance to receive his support the next. Perhaps Al Gore can explain. The real tragedy here – apart from the environmental one – is for Australia’s future economy. Australia once had a world-leading scheme to prepare it for a carbon-constrained future. That architecture has been comprehensively dismantled, to be replaced with government hand-outs to the worst culprits. Greens leader Christine Milne made the obvious point. “What we have here is no contribution to bringing down emissions, no modelling to backup the claims, by a government and Clive Palmer which tore down an emissions trading scheme which was bringing down emissions,” she said in response. Meanwhile, the world keeps warming, and the world’s economic powers are rapidly moving towards far more serious efforts to transform their polluting industries. If you want proof, look to China’s latest five year plan. It ploughed billions into renewable energy, established a pilot ETS in some of the countries’ largest regions, including Beijing, and moved to radically lower coal consumption in an attempt to curb China’s crippling air pollution. China has introduced a coal tariff, and Australia’s biggest trading partner is reportedly preparing to introduce a national ETS in 2016. In contrast, Australia is going backwards. Under Direct Action, Australia is storing up huge risks for our future economic wellbeing. Instead of a gradual transition that allows the market to adjust in the least costly manner, we are instead headed for a disruptive future in which rapid decarbonisation may well be forced on us by international sanction. The result could be precisely the sort of rust-belt doomsday that Tony Abbott prophesied in his campaign against the carbon tax. |
|
By:
just more political propaganda
and again .. like a co2 tax .. or an ETS ... will do nothing for anything how do these rag journos justify breathing out co2 ... dont you see the irony |
|
By:
Paris 2015 will save us, bring it on
 |
|
By:
this is now an embarrassing thread
Hunt: "We'll spend money on ETS review, but before it even starts we've already said no ETS, hence the review is pointless" this wikipedia nuffy is relying on Australian people having no idea about the difference between a carbon tax and ETS The libturds do not believe in climate change. A review of the ETS is an exercise in futility and tax payer money down the drain. end of thread IMO |
|
By:
its my thread and it wont be closed for any WAturd/s, but will live on until the absurdity of an ETS is gone
At least they stopped the Xenphon idea of buying $500m of overseas credits...for nothing in return....that's the thing you pay all this absurd amount of money to the bankers benefit so you can continue to spew out more emissions... QUITE CLEARLY THE BIGGEST RORT EVER KNOW TO MAN billions of dollars for worthless pieces of paper ffs |
|
By:
this thread could run forever in that case - Global ETS on it's way
just as soon as Abbott gets out of the way |
|
By:
so be it womble but no fktard will be closing it that's for sure
|
|
By:
our grandchildren will look like this ( picture ) and this thread will still be going
 |
|
By:
our grandchildren will look like this ( picture ) and this thread will still be going
and so will climate change ... but what will they want to tax next lol the ETS was a rank failure for over 13 years in Europe proponents of the scheme (the IPCC & Al Gore) need money from somewhere people suggest it didn't work in europe because of the GFC have a guess who caused the GFC ... if you guessed the global banking cartels give yourself a pat on the back have a guess next who bought up all (well 80%) of the carbon credit offsets when the ETS was ago in Europe another pat on the back if you guessed the VERY SAME BANKING CARTELS that caused the GFC and Al Gore is in business with them .. (i rest my case Your Honour )they need more suckers in their filthy ponzi plan ... and Oz are ripe for the pickings the left wing rubbish rags are wrriting that Direct Action might cost Oz a couple of billion but nowhere do those NON independent political propaganda rags mention that Gillard The Deceiver had booked Oz in for a $10 billion dollar handover of our sovereign wealth to the UN (signed by Comet the Zombet at the Cancun Junket) so much for independent reporting ffs ---- only a non politcal party propagandist or a genuine non-payroll climate scientist would even suggest that the movement of money between countries will address the greenhouse issue ... and why ... BECAUSE THAT PLAN HAS ALREADY FAILED IN EUROPE FOR OVER A DECADE some people will say that the economy in europe will pick up and things will kick off again with a big dollar value on co2 well i suggest those people check the balance sheets of europe by country ... that ain't gonna happen for a minimum 25 years 9and that is if there is not another mini-collapse in between) the ETS 9and certainly the zero dollar value ETS ffs) is a joke and a rort come on scientists ... find a solution to the energy needs ... find a solution to the minimal waste issue with Thorium based Nuclear ... there is a solution ... history tells us that .. and history ALSO reminds us ... IT WONT BE A POLITICAL DECISION ---- |