Climate change

[Thing]

Compare the Greens carbon policy with the Libs - libs want to tax us and give it to big business, Greens want to tax big business and give it to us - not hard to work out = don't vote Liberal

[Lanky and Cranky]

He can't Section 52, because he's been found out dealing in deceptive and misleading conduct! Boom boom

[Lanky and Cranky]

He can't Section 52, because he's been found out dealing in ceceptive and misleading conduct! Boom boom

[Section52]

Thing -'Liberals will create a worse carbon tax'. Please explain

[Lanky and Cranky]

You're kidding me? Is that the best you can do? The Coalition is the only mob with an immediate way to cut emissions. I suggest you cut you emissions by putting that carrot where the sun don't shine!

[Thing]

Liberals will create a worse carbon tax.. Vote for the Greens &/or Labor over rAbbot

[Lanky and Cranky]

If Labor and the Greens win control of both houses Australia WILL have a carbon tax that will force up consumer prices without reducing carbon emissions for a very long time. When will people realise that putting a tax on carbon doesn't stop the emissions going into the atmosphere from the tens of thousands of big stationary industrial emitters that are responsible for up to 85% of all greenhouse gas emissions? This is the infrastructure our economies and shareholder investments are wholly reliant upon and it is dishonest and frankly stupid to imagine that renewables will have very much of an impact in reducing emissions within the next decade.

To his credit, Tony Abbott and the coalition are committed to regulating the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions from the big utilities using available off the shelf technology. Example: Tarong, the biggest power station in Queensland has halved its nitrogen oxide emissions by about a half by installing after-burners.

There's a heap that is being done in China and the US to get on with the important job of cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the big polluters (that are powering Bob Brown's lights too) WITHOUT wrecking the economy with a carbon tax and loading up consumers with higher prices.

But, guess what? While the ALP and Greens have been banging on about a Carbon Tax (they're the only ones in the world stupid enough to pursue it without first addressing how the emissions cuts are actually to be made!) - neither have bothered to notice that there's NO UNIFORM NATIONAL STANDARD OR LICENSING FOR THE BIG INDUSTRIAL EMITTERS! Shame on Rudd and Gillard and Brown to claim moral leadership on "the biggest environmental challenge of our time" and having no solution other than a new tax - when they could be regulating national emissions standards. If that's the best Malcolm Turnbull could come up with by way of "action on climate change" then frankly, he showed he wasn't ready to be Prime Minister.

Copenhagen failed for a reason, NO, NOT BECAUSE ALL POLITCIANS AND GOVERNMENTS ARE EVIL CLIMATE HATERS, but because they realised before it was too late that a tax on carbon is a tax on carbon, IT IS NOT EMISSIONS REDUCTION! So get real all you marsh-mellow brained dreamers! Tony Abbott has a plan to cut the major source of emissions - and assuming that's what REALLY matters - how about acknowledgement that with the Greens and Labor you won't see emissions cuts, just a big fat tax.

There's a long way to go before emitters feel they can no longer push the pain onto consumers and need to begin changing the technologies behind their enormous capital investments. If you think they're going to pull down carbon emitting infrastructure just because some misguided idealist has decided "let's tax carbon" - you're dreaming.

Wake-up Australia - we're headed for a huge cost of living increase for no foreseeable emissions reductions. STOP Labor and the Greens before it's too late!

[vp1959]

Snickerdoodle....

A post of mine from 9 December 2010 is echoed by you in part.

"On a slightly different slant is the lack of mainstream media coverage of the leaked emails from East Anglia University (UK) - aka "Climategate" - and the resultant fallout.

This has been particularly noticeable in the US, with the Tiger Woods saga being touted as the ideal smokescreen, thereby taking centre stage from the climate change data scandal.

The media is swayed by political pressure in what it reports and what it doesn't. Unfortunately, those who have a case against climate change are muffled - from talkback shows to rejection of papers published by recognised scientific journals because they don't push the global warming agenda. Censorship at its very worst!"

As far as Wikipedia goes, one editor named Kim Dabelstein, has an obsessive hatred for anything anti-climate change and acts accordingly by deleting any reference to the opposition to the climate change mantra. Again, censorship at its very worst.

He was a overly regular contributor to the message boards of IMDB, "discussing" the acolades of the Al Gore mockumentary called "An Inconvenient Truth". His username is "kim-324" and also went under the guise of "nealjking".

Wikipedia, and other online pseudo-encloypedias, are generally inaccurate, basing their sources from those less than credible, and being subjected to the whims of the editors.

[snickerdoodle]

On that note, a few weeks ago I chanced upon an article, regarding top scientists involved with the IPCC, calling for a complete overhaul of that body. This article appeared on the ninemsn website early in the morning. It was gone within a couple of hours of being posted. Of course crap about Tiger Wood's wayward woody remained on that website all day long, plus other unimportant crap. There was no mention of this newsworthy item on any of our news channels either.

In this article, which was still very supportive of the IPCC, these top scientists wanted less government interference and a more open 'Wikipedia style' forum for discussion of climate science. In essence they acknowledged that the IPCC was perceived by the public as not being independent enough from government interests and pressure; and that issues like 'climategate' would be less likely if it adopted an open forum style.

[4th class citizen]

Just when we thought it was safe.....

Now today the Meteorological and CSIRO heads are all coming out and saying Climate Change is happening and warming is proved by them having figures for last 100 years.

Oh yeah like we are about to have a 100 year birthday for the planet - get real folks.

Yeah right and who pays your most likely excessive wages? Is the career on the line if you don't tow the line?

Will they never give up trying to tax us even more on our power - ours is already around 27% higher and going up again in July just on the thought of getting 40% plus if the ETS isnt dead and seemingly it hasn't died yet and no-one in this government seems willing to give up on taxing us more quietly whilst assuring us no new taxes!



Climate Change - sure happens minimum of 4 times a year and varies often - ask anyone who lives in Melbourne - 4 seasons in a day there at times......that is climate change - AGW is dead maties - all a big con job always was only the sheep ever believed in it.

[herring]

What we simply need is empirical investigation, where all scientists are heard equally.

There should be no 'alarmists' vs 'skeptics'.

[RodinOZ]

I woke up this morning to discover global "cooling" had arrived.

Bring back global "warming' I say

[maxpower07]

I believe we are heading towards a change in climate patterns but that it is a natural cyclic planetary phenomenon.

Taxes and debate are just a means of distraction away from the mechanics of the process.

That it is not driven by mans activities but doesnt alter the fact global polluting practices are unhelpful and environmentally irresponsible regardless.

We are facing dwindling energy supplies, global overpopulation and limited access to resources, clean food and air and thats the problem as we go into an uncertain future.

[vp1959]

Climate change, sensationally called global warming, is basically a hoax which gained a religious like cult status by a failed politican named Al Gore.

Now that many governments across the world have seized an opportunity to further tax the already overtaxed public (the you and me's), any statement that is contrary to the ideals of climate change are quickly hushed up or diluted by mainstream media. The prime example of this is last year's email leakage from the East Anglia University which puts much of the IPCC's claim of global warming at odds with real science and data.

Unfortunately, there is much misinformation and disinformation from both sides of the debate. This is usual generated by unofficial and sensationalist websites and blogs. Facts are facts and innuendos and hearsay are just that. It's just a matter if you use analytical thinking to distinguish the two.

[maxpower07]

Thats right there is plenty of evidence on the internet and i am sure you dont like the public accessing information rather than accepting the drivel that bureaucrats dish out via "official" channels that mislead the public about the dangers of tobbacco, DDT, lead, asbestos etc...

Ignorance isnt bliss but its your choice.

Climate change is just a great excuse to mislead and tax the public rather than pursue the main industrial polluters and offenders.