Forums

Australian

There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5453 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 4 of 137  •  Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 137 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,453
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 07 Dec 10 07:39
Laugh

good call chief
By:
AFL
When: 07 Dec 10 08:02
No doubt the Chief will be putting his hand up to locate the Liberal alternative of a Nuclear plant in his electorate.Cry
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 07 Dec 10 08:10
Laugh

I look forward to the Labor conference discussion on that topic next year AFL - Labor will tear itself apart.
By:
AFL
When: 07 Dec 10 08:28
Only reason the Libs have put it up as an option is they are mirroring the Republicans in the states and attempting to use the issue as a wedge. Pity they can't take an issue as serious as this put up some REAL OPTIONS.
Who's pulling the strings of the Liberal Party?
By:
AFL
When: 07 Dec 10 08:39
Jim Henson?LaughLaughLaugh
By:
AFL
When: 07 Dec 10 09:14
From ABC News U.S.A.

GOP's Global Warming Skeptics to Take House Chairs on Energy, Science
Scientists Anxious About Incoming Republicans Who Deny Global Warming


By RUSSELL GOLDMAN
Dec. 6, 2010

All of the contenders in line to head the prestigious House committees responsible for setting America's energy and science policy are global warming skeptics, and that's causing scientists to worry that Republicans will use their new positions for political grandstanding at the expense of scientific advancement.

The Republicans, who will take over leadership of the House in January, have not yet announced who will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Science and Technology Committee, but the short lists for both committees consist solely of congressmen who question the veracity of climate change.

Already, Republican Speaker-elect John Boehner of Ohio has fired an opening salvo against Democratic inroads on climate change policy, announcing last week that the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, a pet project of outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, would be dismantled.

"This is a very partisan world and most Republicans are already focused on the 2012 presidential election," said Marchant Wentworth, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "WHILE THEY PLAY POLITICS, SOUND SCIENCE IS BEING TRAMPLED IN THE PROCESS."

"Clean air and clean water are at stake. Why use these for a political agenda to whip up a partisan situation?" he asked.

Boehner has said he wants to restore the independence and authority of the committee chairs.

The fight to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee is shaping up to be one of the most contentious.

Jez you are and have been sprouting the the same garbage as the Republican/Liberals. Don't give a stuff about the enviornment. Climate change is cra p . Stuff the rest of the world.Sad
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 07 Dec 10 09:17
awwwwwwwwwwwwSad

AFL
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 07 Dec 10 09:17
Laugh

Wake to yourself ffs
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 07 Dec 10 09:26
For every pro-climate, pro-moral, pro-tax article - I could provide you with an article with the opposite push - sceptic, if you will.

Again, I'll repeat this just for you AFL.

I have doubts over the science - why do you think public confidence in the theories are waning?  You think this just happened for no good reason?

There have been monumental errors made, fudging of numbers, exaggeration of models and blatent scandalous behaviour from those (scientists and others) involved in the climate change push.

Myself, yes, as I say, I question the science.  The exact notion of warming, as articles have been posted on this thread, questioning the notion of constant global warming.  I also question the notion that man is contributing to alleged climate change.

Anyhow, that aside.  I have always said I support action on the environment.  Of course I dislike pollution, of course I believe in a nutured and protected environment - and caring for nature.

I also believe in real solutions with real outcomes.

This great big new tax on everything is exactly that:
a GREAT BIG NEW TAX ON EVERYTHING.

We cross our fingers, we tax the guts out of the nation - and what does the environment get out of it?  NOTHING

Oh but we have to do something?

Yeah, right on...Cry....a carbon tax gives us a great big new tax on everything and zero environmental improvement.

Excuse me, if I'm not YAHHHHOOOOING in excitement about the whole scheme.  ffs[smiley:crazy]...........
By:
Thebas
When: 07 Dec 10 10:06
a proposed opportunistic tax ... based on seemingly flawed rhetoric ... and with not ONE penny of said proposed tax ... earmarrked 'towards' the very claimed hazard it is to be drawn from ... shame on those opportunistic politicians ...
By:
AFL
When: 07 Dec 10 10:54
Time will tell.......whether Human Nature trumps Nature itself.Sad
By:
Village Kid
When: 07 Dec 10 13:53
the earth warms up, the earth cools down, the earth warms up, the earth cools down, the earth warms up, the earth cools down, the earth warms up, the earth cools down as it has for billions of years...........yes that's right folks.......we live on the hardened crust of a molten rock hurtling thru space as 30km per second.....nothing here is PERMANENT......the only thing certain is the impending mass extinction
By:
secong coming.
When: 07 Dec 10 20:37
VK welcome back!!!!!!! thankyou for your words hopefully womble will take note
By:
secong coming.
When: 08 Dec 10 00:32
i wonder if any of the respondents in favour of the big new tax on EVERTHING have wondered about the scientists that dreamt this carp up maybe just maybe are just trying to justify their existence (read:taxpayer funding) with easy to skew figures , any that read the report link at top of the thread would notice the problems in getting accurate temp feeds with the woeful or dare i say it wilful positioning of weather stations to give inaccurate temps? betya womble or afl didnt , some sort of denial of the truth IMO

gee we've had studies on all sorts of absolute carp over the years and do we go ahead and tax accordingly?
By:
secong coming.
When: 08 Dec 10 00:33
think i repeated myself there inaccurate readings at end of paragraph already mentioned............
By:
Village Kid
When: 08 Dec 10 01:31
cheers secong........this whole "Climate Change" carry on just blows me away
as if humans can stop it!!!!......when I saw there was actually a Minister for Climate Change i nearly choked on my Coffee
when i saw women protesting in a mass rally about "stopping climate change" i truly thought the world had gone mad

we are in a cycle of glacial periods.....this is FACT.....temps go up, peak then it cools down and on it goes

it all just doesn't matter as like i said ANOTHER MASS EXTINCTION is inevitable
the damage is already done, GOD gave us heaven on Earth and what did we do?
crapped in our own nest and polluted our beautiful planet.....the Earth Mother is about to get revenge
By:
wombleoz
When: 08 Dec 10 09:05
so you're both saying man kind has had NO impact on the planet???
By:
Village Kid
When: 08 Dec 10 09:15
not at all......can't you read? Shocked

yes man has and is impacting the planet but it's nothing compared to what the Earth Mother can do when she's pissed off (volcano's, earthquakes, Tsunami's etc) not to mention big arse meteorites

how could anyone argue against the facts the conditions on this planet constantly change?
always have and always will whether man is here or not

stopping climate change is IMPOSSIBLE.....you may as well try to stop the earth spinning!!!!
By:
wombleoz
When: 08 Dec 10 09:19
i agree conditions are constantly changing and always will BUT I also don't believe that pumping out the amount of s h i t e we do has no effect and can't see how reducing it can be a bad thing
By:
Village Kid
When: 08 Dec 10 09:27
couldn't agree more...

but my point is how deluded some people are as to the extent we can control it
it's mass ignorance......IMO
I blame the Australian education system [;)]
By:
Jez Melb Punter
When: 08 Dec 10 09:41
......WAIT VK, wombleoz and his fellow watermelons have the answer.

A great big new tax on everything, that does absolutely nothing to help the environment.....................

[smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy][smiley:crazy] ffs
By:
wombleoz
When: 08 Dec 10 10:39
i don't think VK is a fan of the tax Jez - i want to see pollution cut, the tax is the fastest and easiest way to do it
By:
Village Kid
When: 08 Dec 10 12:38
that's right womble.....jez has been known to get a tad excited and miss a few facts

Oil and Coal companies should pay the TAX as it is they who have bribed and scammed to make sure their dirty products dominated the market place when cleaner alternatives have been available.

I've always been gob smacked that the internal combustion engine invented in 1883 still prevails.
You can top yourself with the fumes yet this is our main mode of transport, it's just ridiculous!
Pretty sad considering there were electric cars around in the 1800's too.

So why should Joe Citizen now pay TAX when the world would have been so much less polluted if it wasn't for fossil fuel company/government corruption?
By:
Village Kid
When: 08 Dec 10 12:44
that's why I left......I speak the truth and no one believes me.....fact is stranger than fiction CryCryCry
By:
Village Kid
When: 08 Dec 10 12:58
and when other people tell lies about me people believe them CryCryCry

goodnight judge Silly
By:
Thebas
When: 08 Dec 10 20:34
oil & coal companies should pay the tax ... come on VK ... you know very well who will end up paying the tax Grin
By:
Village Kid
When: 09 Dec 10 01:13
yes, I know.....just dreaming on that one
By:
pxb
When: 09 Dec 10 01:56
I think you'll find it's the balance of CO 2 pxb...picture a locked car filling up with Co 2 ....everything dies...

Picture a second car filling up with oxygen at the same rate (starting from current atmospheric levels), everything dies in the oxygen car first.

This is because increasing levels of oxygen are more toxic to both plants and animals than increasing levels of CO2.

I'm a scientist and am well aware that the CO2/climate circus is the price we pay for a society where 90% of the population is ignorant of basic science.
By:
secong coming.
When: 09 Dec 10 02:02
nice to have robust debate.....even though i am right MischiefSilly
By:
Village Kid
When: 09 Dec 10 02:32
The more oxygen in the atmosphere, the cooler the climate

Everybody talks about CO2 and other greenhouse gases as causes of global warming and the large climate changes we are currently experiencing. But what about the atmospheric and oceanic oxygen content? Which role does oxygen content play in global warming?

This question has become extremely relevant now that Professor Robert Frei from the Department of Geography and Geology at the University of Copenhagen, in collaboration with colleagues from Uruguay, England and the University of Southern Denmark, has established that there is a historical correlation between oxygen and temperature fluctuations towards global cooling.

The team of researchers reached their conclusions via analyses of iron-rich stones, so called banded iron formations, from different locations around the globe and covering a time span of more than 3,000 million years. Their discovery was made possible by a new analytical method which the research team developed. This method is based on analysis of chrome isotopes – different chemical variants of the element chrome. It turned out that the chrome isotopes in the iron rich stones reflect the oxygen content of the atmosphere. The method is a unique tool, which makes it possible to examine historical changes in the atmospheric oxygen content and thereby possible climate changes.

"But we can simply conclude that high oxygen content in seawater enables a lot of life in the oceans "consuming" the greenhouse gas CO2, and which subsequently leads to a cooling of the earth's surface. Throughout history our climate has been dependent on balance between CO2 and atmospheric oxygen. The more CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the warmer the climate has been. But we still don't know much about the process which drives the earth from a period with a warmer climate towards an "ice age" with colder temperatures – other than that oxygen content plays an important role. It would therefore be interesting to consider atmospheric and oceanic oxygen contents much more in research aiming at understanding and tackling the causes of the current climate change," says Professor Robert Frei.

The results Professor Frei and his international research team have obtained indicate that there have been two periods in the earth's 4.5 billion year history where a significant change in the atmospheric and oceanic oxygen content has occurred. The first large increase took place in between 2.45 billion years and 2.2 billion years ago. The second "boost" occurred for only 800 to 542 million years ago and lead to an oxidisation of the deep oceans and thereby the possibility for life to exist at those depths.

"To understand the future, we have to understand the past. The two large increases in the oxygen content show, at the very least, that the temperature decreased. We hope that these results can contribute to our understanding of the complexity of climate change. I don't believe that humans have a lot of influence on the major process of oxygen formation on a large scale or on the inevitable ice ages or variations in temperature that the Earth's history is full of. But that doesn't mean that we cannot do anything to slow down the current global warming trend. For example by increased forestry and other initiatives that help to increase atmospheric and oceanic oxygen levels," explains Professor Robert Frei, who, along with his research team, has worked on the project for three years so far.

Source: University of Copenhagen
By:
laythefave
When: 09 Dec 10 02:53
I'm no expert on climate change, nor, dare I say it, are too many others. What I do know, just from living on this planet and in particular Melbourne where I have lived all my life, is that the air isn't as good to breathe as it was 50 years ago. You have to go deep into some country areas, to be reminded what fresh air used to be.

There is no doubt that we have been polluting and continue to pollute our air with all sorts of emissions. You just have to look at Beijing, Mexico City which is shocking, and on a bad day Los Angeles as just some examples.

Whether or not, this pollution is affecting climate change, I really don't know. What I do know, is that it I have seen droughts, large rain events and floods and nothing has changed. Currently the floods in Wagga Wagga, are being described as a once in 30 year event. What that means is that it happened 30 years ago when no one had even heard of climate change. So what's new.

Having said that however, there is no doubt in my mind that we have to do something about pollution and polluters. And if that means taxing the cnuts that take no care with the poison that they are spewing forth into the air, then so be it.
By:
secong coming.
When: 09 Dec 10 03:23
hmmm so because i'm sitting at my desk right now fair dinkum sweltering and avoiding the air con if i dare use a desktop fan i get taxed extra for it?
By:
Thebas
When: 09 Dec 10 03:32
tax schmax ... ffs ... does anyone remember 7 years ago ... when the papers were saying ... if petrol hits $1 a litre ... there'll be
blood in the streets ... taxation has SO LITTLE to do with ... genuine concern for substantial behaviour moderation IN BUSINESS (AS IT
IS IMMEDIATELY PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER) ... that as SOON as we get past the emotive call for MORE TAX ... the CLOSER we might get to
... doing something REAL

ffs Shocked
By:
laythefave
When: 09 Dec 10 03:56
Secong, I'm not a proponent of tax.

What I am saying is that polluters who spew forth poisonous gases into the air and do nothing to prevent or stop it happening, should be taxed or fined until they come up with a way to stop their pollution.

I'm not talking about the individual users such as ourselves. We may well be contributing to the poor quality of the air we breathe, but it's miniscule in relation to the big blokes that have gotten away with murder for years and need to be brought to account.

I would like to spend the rest of what remains of my life breathing relatively clean airGrinGrin
By:
Village Kid
When: 09 Dec 10 03:59
so who's gunna tell China they have to become "cleaner and greener"

the "carbon footprint" of my entire lifetime wouldn't match that of 1 day from a Chinese factory

it's all just p1ssing in the wind.....the countdown to our extinction has already began

and on that note I'm gunna crank up the Aircon Laugh
By:
Village Kid
When: 09 Dec 10 05:16
i use a green system for carwashing..........
the ant colony that resides in my vehicle does a great job at keeping it clean (this is not a joke!)
By:
Thebas
When: 09 Dec 10 05:52
as long as it ain't those pesky fire-ants VK

but on a more realistic approach ... if a govt (not 'the' govt - any govt) ... is propsoing a carbon tax ...
with not ONE cent of that tax ear-marked towards the hazard ... then they ain't fooling me ... they just
have zero interest themselves re the problem ... and are being opportunistic ... and disgusting in their
contempt for the electorate by 'money grabbing'

if 'a' govt was genuinely interested in 'greening' the carbon footprint ... then impose their TAX ... specify
the tax and then offer ... a financial INCENTIVE ... to the companies who find suitable alternative options
... and use the gathered tax for thatpurpose

for 'a' govt to use a proposed tax that goes straight back into consolidated revenue ... shows me they have
ZERO interest the problem

there is a way ... there always is ...  if anyone in the power positions really care

VK is probably right ... extinction is imminent ... maybe in the next 2-3 centuries

when the crunch is nigh ... the 'really money'ed' people (if they haven't fleed to new planets lol) ... will
not want THEIR GAME to end ... and will ultimately make the change ... and the populace of the time somehow
... will again pay up ... don't give up yet
By:
Village Kid
When: 09 Dec 10 06:06
well put TB....i couldn't put it any better as I'm semi literate [:p]

and they are just those little black ants who smell bad when you crush them
and taste absolutely rank when you eat them! Plain
By:
Thebas
When: 09 Dec 10 06:22
LaughLaugh
By:
pxb
When: 09 Dec 10 07:43
What I am saying is that polluters who spew forth poisonous gases into the air

And that's the problem. CO2 isn't a poisonous gas. If CO2 were poisonous, you would be dead, because, the CO2 levels in your lungs are hundreds of times higher than in the atmosphere.

By calling CO2 pollution, they are ignoring real pollution, that damages lungs, kills the elderly and harms the growth of kids.

CO2 as pollution is dishonest nonsense peddled to the scientifically ignorant, which includes 95% of politicians.
Page 4 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