When I think of Aussies being scammed by Nigerian con men, the people I think about are these lot on here who have their faith in the flim-flam man and the CSIRO in telling the absolute truth - they are prime candidates for the Nigerians LOL
So if I read something and don't understand it I get to claim that it's fraud instead of something like I'm too stupid or uneducated to understand it? Personal incredulity is not evidence of fraud.
When I sit down and think about how some asinine Aussies have been so easily coned into this carbon tax by the best known public pathological liar in history; I laugh uncontrollably until I realise these idiots also have the power of the vote. The main premise and arguments used to introducing this carbon Tax was to reduce carbon emissions to stop the planets temperature rising, and the catch-phrases used to scare and convince everyone were; Global Warming and now Climate Change. The problem is; most reputable scientists now agree that Australia reducing its tiny 0.0004% carbon emissions over 18 years (and the significant point here is over 18 years; not 1 or 5 years) will NOT reduce the planets overall temperature that can be measured using current technology. Some scientists have speculated including Lord Monckton that the overall reduction would be as low as 0.00000014 degrees, and that simply cannot be measured on a Global scale using current methods. Now if the planets temperature is NOT going to be reduced by the introduction of this $15billion dollar carbon tax on Australian industries and Australian consumers, then why is the carbon really being introduced? After all, the Prime Minister and all the Labor and Greens politicians have TOLD us that the introduction of this carbon tax was to deduce carbon emissions to save the planet from Global warming and now Climate change - in other words, planets temperature increases.
The world`s top scientists don`t undersatnd climatology ,but the world`s dumbest have fallen for the, "our hands in their pockets" routine.
How about being honest, you want the ego trip of dragging those tall popies down. Be honest, This religion caters to your jealousy, and your obsession with bringing those tall popies down. You don`t understand the science, the propoganda maybe, but not the science.
The science tells us Australia does not need a carbon tax, as Australia's contribution to reducing its small carbon emissions quota will have NO effect on the planets temperature nor on global warming or climate change as its called these days. Some people must like being taxed by politicians for the sake of it. If you are that wealthy you can afford to contribute to a tax for no reason, then donate some extra money to the Government and help the rest of us tax payers out!!
How do you now conveniently dodge the facts that nearly every reputable scientist has now advocate that Australia’s TINY 0.0004% reduction of carbon emissions over 18 years will do NOTHING measurable in reducing the planets temperature? The methodology instrumental in the Labor & Greens politicians introduction of this carbon tax was based on the scientific theory that reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 0.0004% over 18 years WOULD reduce the Planets overall temperature; therefore helping to stop ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’ which ever phrase you care to use. This is not going to happen now, so why are the Australia people STILL being forced and subjected to this Greens Party policy?
Don't yo think you have made enough stupid, unsupported statements this thread? You are making more?!?! When did the IPCC and UEA get "caught out lying and fudging the data "? What was this "data"they supposedly fudged? It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a lie. It doesn't make it true. How about some evidence to support these things you write? Parroting Alan Jones is only evidence of gullibility - nothing else. But you have built up a big list this thread: You wrote "No warming in the last 15 years" Could you please provide some evidence to support this statement? Or apologise to the forum for telling a lie. And are you ever going to tell us what prediction Flannery made that was wrong? We have already established that you statement was a lie when you when you said he said: "that we wouldnt see good rain again and that dams would never fill" So what did he actually predict? Could you please explain these false statements you have been making?
Yes - extremities in the ENSO cycle do seem to be like they are becoming the new norm. We saw that in the Las El Nino, and in the current La Nina. What are you finding difficult to understand about this?
No. Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt have been scaring you with imaginary permanent global warming drought predictions. CSIRO and BOM have been advising your that more extreme weather conditions are becoming more common I think you will find that the IPCC has been warning that extreme weather events will increase in frequency for about a decade now What you remember is one Time magazine article written by a journalist. The scientific consensus of the time was - as now - that anthropogenic emissions were causing global warming But you can try to distort the past because that is what Alan Jones told you. He lied to you. The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting global cooling and an imminent ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
What the AGW faithfull don`t realise, is that although the envied rich will be the first to be impacted by an envy / carbon price, the poor will be the most vulnerable to severe hardship.
It is an emissions trading scheme. Not a tax. they are not the same thing. 'Climate change' and 'global warming' are actually two different things. Both terms have been used for well over 3 decades. Both terms are still in use. One has not replaced the other. I would say all reputable scientists have always agreed that Australia reducing its tiny 0.0004% carbon emissions over 18 years will NOT reduce the planets overall temperature that can be measured using current technology. It was never intended to. It will reduce the rate of increase. Obvious quoting Andrew Bolt does nothing for your case. “Lord Monckton” is not a scientist. If you want to quote anyone else - give a reference. To reduce the rate of temperature increase. Stop quoting Bolty's talking point. It is painfully obvious. No. The Prime Minister and all the Labor and Greens politicians have TOLD you that the introduction of this emissions trading scheme was to restructure the nation's economy so that it is better placed to reduce carbon emissions in order to reduce ‘Global warming” - which is causing ‘Climate change’ - in other words, REDUCING THE RATE of the planet's temperature increases.
Nobody said it would. Stop quoting Bolty No. that statement is simply a lie THe pharases are not interchangable - they mean two different things. It is not Greens Party policy. Greens wanted a carbon tax. We didn't get that. We got an inferior market-based scheme. But anyway - it is called democracy. A majority of Australians voted for the candidates that had policies to put a price on carbon. I know it suck to lose and be wrong - but you just have to live with it.
Reducing Australia's Tiny Amount Of Carbon Emissions Will Not Decrease The Planets Temperature!!! So Why Are We Having A Carbon Tax?
You really need to read your message 115 & 116 again, as you really contradicted yourself big time. If you are not going to be honest, then I am not going to debate you anymore!! Check you last paragraph in your message 115 and the first quote plus your answer in message 116, and see if you can see the contradiction!! LOL LOL
Correct. No one has ever said it would To reduce the rate of increase of the planet's temperature. BTW - it is an ETS. Not a tax.
last paragraph in your message 115: No. The Prime Minister and all the Labor and Greens politicians have TOLD you that the introduction of this emissions trading scheme was to restructure the nation's economy so that it is better placed to reduce carbon emissions in order to reduce Global warming - which is causing Climate change - in other words, REDUCING THE RATE of the planet's temperature increases. answer in message 116 Quote: Originally Posted by culldav How do you now conveniently dodge the facts that nearly every reputable scientist has now advocate that Australias TINY 0.0004% reduction of carbon emissions over 18 years will do NOTHING measurable in reducing the planets temperature? Nobody said it would. Stop quoting Bolty Where is the contradiction? I can't see it. Could you point it out? You keep repeating Bolty's taliking point about reducing the planet's temperature. I expose you as a parrot. Where is the contradiction? BTW: Do you understand the difference between "reducing the planet's temperature" and reducing the rate of temperature increase? You keep parroting Bolt - so I assume you don't
Who!?! Show me a quote where David Jones from BOM advises of extreme flooding becoming more common. theage.com.au February 17, 2009 VICTORIA is likely to come under the influence of another El Nino within the next three years, exacerbating the drought and the likelihood of bushfires, a senior Bureau of Meteorology climate scientist says. David Jones, the head of the bureau's National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011. http://www.theage.com.au/national/drought-and-fire-here-to-stay-with-el-ninos-return-20090216-899u.html#ixzz1nrZUq1ik Nope: Stephen Schneider, 1976: "I have cited many examples of recent climate variability and repeated the warnings of several well known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in - perhaps one akin to the little ice age" Video, go to the 42min mark [ame="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010[/ame] who!?! Repeating a lie a million times doesn't make it the truth.
reading and comprehension are not bugs greatest skills bud. AGW is a scam. In at least one investigation into the IPCC/UEA climategate affair they were found to have lied about the data fudge the figures..aka hokey stick..what a joke that sh!t was schemed to hide the real data bully science journal editors that published dissenting papers engaged in political activism not followed their own rules on the peer review system And these are the very same fools that bugs follows like they are gods....LOL WHAT A GOOSE
LOL the only time i get to see what bugs writes is when somone quotes him/her/it. I see the ol standard of bla bla bla bolt...bla bla bla alan jones... is still the reply of choice. The simple FACT is that the science is far from settled and before anyone takes a drastic move like putting a carbon TAX in place there needs to be a better understanding of what is going on.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/failed-climate-predictions/ how wrong can you get things???????? These fools should stop playing with computer models.. here is flim flam getting it all wrong http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wM_C_-2MGWU Oh poor bugs, your religion is falling down.
