How to get expelled from school - AGW brainwashing our kids at school

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by dumbanddumber, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. mickeyy

    mickeyy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lol and do you think Tony Abbott is a better alternative to provide a solution? Maybe Malcolm Turnbull but do you really think so?
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    92,945
    Likes Received:
    74,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Feel free to place one in your home - then get back to me in relation to the efficiency of the things

    IF they work it will make a lot of people very happy and a lot of electricity companies very unhappy

    But you do not hang your hat on a wish
     
  4. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The article does say that both gentlemen recieved death threats, now i wonder who would do such a thing!

    Free energy is probably available now but we will never see it that is guaranteed.

    Carbon tax what a scam.
     
  5. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Free energy? Like... the sun? Wind? Geothermal? Tidal? Yes... it does exist now.

    For god's sake don't buy that rubbish off youtube. Might as well flush your money down the toilet.
     
  6. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wait a minute ziggy what about if it works and amplifies your mains supply 5 fold.

    Your carbon foot print would have been reduced by 80%.

    Power stations would only need to output 20% of current rates.

    Now you can't tell me that isn't a great thing for our environment.

    No Carbon Tax Scam, no sucking billions of Tax payer dollars to the UN and World Bank and Wall street.

    How can you go wrong.

    Told ya Aussies could fix the problem right here at home without being involved in the ponzy European ETS.

    And you might want to add electromagnetic to your list.



    .
     
  7. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm noticing a lot of solar panels around now. Havent got them myself yet but I heard the energy companies put you on a more expensive rate, as a supplier, if you use solar and that it ends up not making any difference to your pocket - unless you spend heaps and get more then enough panels to make enough excess power to cover anything you do need to draw from them.
     
  8. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    dumbanddumber... you can't be serious, efficiency cannot exceed 100%.

    You might as well call them electromagic power converters.

    Only a complete and utter moron would by something that is so obviously fake.

    And axial I have no idea wtf you are talking about. So you've "heard" this, from who exactly? Go and investigate it yourself and then get back to us.

    However that's irrelevant to what I said, because the suns energy is still free.
     
  9. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ziggy these electromagnetic power enhancers produce more electricity than is reaquired to run them.

    Therefore if they are turned on where before you would have been using 100% mains electricity now you will only be using 20% the other 80% is produced by the electromagnetic devices.

    This immediately cuts your carbon footprint by 80%.

    It also means that the power companies only need to produce 20% of current rates.

    So effectively you are cutting your green house emmissions by 80% so is the whole residential community.

    That is something that the carbon tax or the European ponzy scheme of an ETS that we'll get chained to can NEVER achieve.
     
  10. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Because one cannot "make up their own mind" without studying and reviewing in detail. I'm afraid a couple of hours a week doesn't cut it.

    People instead make up their mind based on innumerable pre-existing prejudices and what may happen is that the mind is changed by an incomplete alternative explanation.

    I'm sure the AGW argument gets a commensurable amount of time in the science class, relative to it's standing in the broader scientific community. Just because 1% of scientists believe their view is correct, should you give it 50% of the time/exposure?

    We've been through this.
     
  11. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It takes a while, but you will get your money back in however many years (do the maths for whatever set up). After that, it's free* electricity :)

    *some of your taxes support these initiatives.
     
  12. mickeyy

    mickeyy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you do chemistry, physics and biology, climate change is quite obvious. Students aren't taught that climate change exists but the evidence which all links up and points to the fact of there exists climate change.

    If you do economics also, you would see that the 'carbon market' is not a scam.

    Tony Abbott's Direct Action Policy is idiotic.
    He says:
    - tax everyone (including those poor) $750 and give them to big, rich, companies to invest in green energy (which is why it's called DIRECT ACTION)
    - Build a forest the size of Victoria

    The carbon tax (and future ETS) will
    - Tax the big, rich companies until they find means of investing in green energy

    The first economic model (direct action policy) is fundamentally flawed because it would generally contribute to the greatness in the gap between the rich and the poor.

    The second economic model is good (BECAUSE ON ONE HAND WE HAVE THE WORLD'S BEST ECONOMIST) because it places big companies an incentive to change.

    3 out of 4 economist are for the carbon tax

    Lol and you prefer to listen to the minority in light of democracy

    94% of scientists are certain climate change is occuring

    why do people continue to whinge?
    cause they're bogan in nature.
    And you will get your money back from the carbon tax.

    The only people that dont and shouldnt is when they have a grossly large income while others are finding it difficult to buy their children uniforms, pay the bills and studying.
     

Share This Page