Carbon Tax.Its a BIG Con!!!

[charles_wif_xf]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_au

I don't care for Tony Abbott, and I don't care for Julia either, I just like trees, they're pretty is all

CO2... isn't that the stuff they make fizzy drinks with? If so, why doesn't the ocean taste like mineral water already? /stupidity

**** LOL!!!

[blueoval]

I like what auslandau had written at post 61. Would love to see someone answer the questions.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gs1973

Yeah, and I have seen other reports to the contrary.. Thats the thing here people- no one really knows.. Just a bunch of blokes running around with theories I think..

Well how about you post the references? or were they just scam emails?

The US geological survey is a scam, want to point out how they have it wrong?

Logically, how could volcanoes be repsonsible for the increase in co2 emissions?
Do you really believe that there has been a sudden increase in volcanic emissions in the last 200 years that just happens to coincide with the industrial revolution

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gs1973

What crap? If I could be stuffed I would find you several articles by highly qualified scientists who dispute the crap.. So they are wrong due to their theory?

List them! you will find there is a less than a handful, and there will be even fewer that can provide some research to go with it, and peer reviewed reports.......rofl.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gs1973

A great alternative article of which there are many.. As I said earlier just alot of people on both sides of the debate with white lab coats and a theory..

Nice theory but not reality, there are not a lot of scientists supporting the denialists, just a lot of people in media quoting the same ones who say what they want to hear.....just listen to Alan Jones.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

That is an extremely one sided biased site though ..... have you read through it? Volcanos vs man .... I dont know who wins but cannot rely on sites like that to show a balanced discussion.

A bit of reading .... whether you beleive in the bloke or not he has as much 'knowledge' as the rest of them ....... just a snippet below form http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...odels-go-cold/

Did you look at the link I provided earlier:http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

you want to tell us the US geological survey is telling lies too?

You want "balanced" information? sites that include real data and facts are unbalanced?, oh, by balanced you mean people quoting no facts or providing any real data telling you agw is a scam?

Perhaps look up the author of the article: David Evans....he is not a climate scientist, nor has he done any research in the area, just come up with his own self serving theories that will appease those with their fingers in their ears:

Self serving? Mr Evans interests are making sure it is business as usual for the mining industry, perhaps look him up as Goldnerds.com and why not look at the rantings of his partner in crime Joanne Nova.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I like what auslandau had written at post 61. Would love to see someone answer the questions.

Questions like these?:
5. When the Carbon level is zero and everyone is dead ..... is this when the tax is lifted or is it permanent .... when we are driving cars powered by coconuts or which one comes first?


......would there be really any point in responding? obviously some are not interested in improving their knowledge or understanding on the issue and just want to make ridiculous statements to try and discredit any action on AGW.

[Thornie]

Untill I get to see some real hard evidence other than government funded science reports, global warming or climate change(whichever it is this week)can go in the corner with ghosts aliens and jesus.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by RaTTuS

Untill I get to see some real hard evidence other than government funded science reports, global warming or climate change(whichever it is this week)can go in the corner with ghosts aliens and jesus.

So who are you going to believe evidence from, amatuer scientists sitting on their porch with their Dick Smith telescope and a thermometer?

Perhaps you can point us to a particular industry that is interested in researching the climate , setting up temperature observation stations, drilling ice cores etc, putting up satellites to measure IR etc? ooh, the oil and coal industry is big enough for that, but have their scientists found anything different to what the govco scientists are telling us? you've had heard about it if they had, though seriously their executives wouldnt waste a cent on having them research stuff that is already known!

Why do you think responsible governments set up reseach organisations like the CSIRO in the 1st place? oh, so they can give their voters more unpopular taxes........that must be it


Perhaps get a grip and have a look at:https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...low-the-money/, where it addresses your type of thinking:

One of the more absurd claims made by the denialists is that climate science offers scientists a veritable “gravy train” of funding.

I’ve always found it a curious argument: after all do biomedical researchers need to “make up cancer” in order to obtain funding? Do biologists make up evolution in order to get grants?

How about those wacky physicists over at CERN who managed to scare up nine billion US dollars to build an atom smasher?

That’s your tax money being scammed by leftist-pinko-scientists who believe in relativity!

Did they fabricate quantum physics in order to get some hot grant money? I mean, who has actually seen a sub-atomic particle?

[grandpa_spec_F6]

/thread

[Thornie]

So what does that link prove, that because i'm yet to see any real evidence of global warming that I'm in denial? just sounds to me like you believe what you read too much, no wonder everyone thinks your posts are laughable. I was going to offer you a tin foil hat but i bet you've already got a hat stand full of them.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So who are you going to believe evidence from, amatuer scientists sitting on their porch with their Dick Smith telescope and a thermometer?

Perhaps you can point us to a particular industry that is interested in researching the climate , setting up temperature observation stations, drilling ice cores etc, putting up satellites to measure IR etc? ooh, the oil and coal industry is big enough for that, but have their scientists found anything different to what the govco scientists are telling us? you've had heard about it if they had, though seriously their executives wouldnt waste a cent on having them research stuff that is already known!

Why do you think responsible governments set up reseach organisations like the CSIRO in the 1st place? oh, so they can give their voters more unpopular taxes........that must be it


Perhaps get a grip and have a look at:https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress...low-the-money/, where it addresses your type of thinking:

One of the more absurd claims made by the denialists is that climate science offers scientists a veritable “gravy train” of funding.

I’ve always found it a curious argument: after all do biomedical researchers need to “make up cancer” in order to obtain funding? Do biologists make up evolution in order to get grants?

How about those wacky physicists over at CERN who managed to scare up nine billion US dollars to build an atom smasher?

That’s your tax money being scammed by leftist-pinko-scientists who believe in relativity!

Did they fabricate quantum physics in order to get some hot grant money? I mean, who has actually seen a sub-atomic particle?

It's a waste of time trying to educate a fool about anything. It's easier to believe it isn't real, so we can all go on about our lives driving V8s. On top of that, there is no other proven disadvantage to pollution other than some mythical global warming? Acid rain was not real either, carbon monoxide doesn't displace oxygen, it is great for everyone. Nox emissions are good for the immune system. Let's all go back to driving 7 Litre V8s with twin 4 barrel carbies, running on leaded fuel. It's totally the way of the future man! While we're at it, we should ban people from getting an education, because it's better to live in denial.

[MITCHAY]

I had to laugh at the people who got up on a Sunday morning to protest FOR a tax

So we implement a carbon tax, business moves offshore where there is none and they are still polluting just not in Australia. What have you actually achieved?

[landau460]

im a sceptic i want My money To prove to me why i should give more of it to the government by a panel of scientists fore and against with no conflict of intrests i dont buy into a sales women for a clown or a government that cannot mismanage money in smaller amounts imagine with alot more miss ronald mcdonald has done a lot to ruin the reputation of government LEFT and RIGHT has made me loose confidence in the whole system .

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I had to laugh at the people who got up on a Sunday morning to protest FOR a tax

So we implement a carbon tax, business moves offshore where there is none and they are still polluting just not in Australia. What have you actually achieved?

Agreed, it should be there purely to promote new technologies, not other countries.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I had to laugh at the people who got up on a Sunday morning to protest FOR a tax

So we implement a carbon tax, business moves offshore where there is none and they are still polluting just not in Australia. What have you actually achieved?

Methinks they'll have HEAPS of spare time for rallies and protests if this becomes reality..... Cause there'll be bugger-all else to do here.

[mickyyyy]

Csv8

Do u mind if I copy and paste on other forums?

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I had to laugh at the people who got up on a Sunday morning to protest FOR a tax

Funny story about this.

Yesterday I was in Southbank and had a bunch of protesters walk by my family with their Yes to Carbon Tax shirts on. I promptly farted when they walked by and they turned and looked at me like I was a disgusting pig.

I then said "Do you want me to pay tax for that as well?"

To which they turned around and kept on with their lost cause.

[Blue_XR]

You know what really irritates me in this debate is that as soon as you are against it you are labelled evil and could not give a rats about the environment. Well I do my bit but I do not buy in to the debate of Man Made Climate change. I beleive, it is naturally occurring as it has been since the beginning of time.

Some of you here mentioned 'Shock Jocks' and they way they carry on. Have any of you actually listened to the debate. I know for one Allan Jones, who some of you refereed to actually interviews people on both sides of the fence and he tries to actually state Facts about the climate. Where has this government actually shown any facts in their defense of this tax. All they say is it will be the end of the world if we do nothing. They are the ones who are promoting fear and negativity instead of getting all groups of scientists together to debate the facts. However, the government is pushing their own agenda and they are supporting the climate change theorists. If you're a scientist and disagree with the government be prepared to lose any funding.

If this Tax is introduced and our coal becomes to expensive then China and India will simply find cheaper coal elsewhere.

To the ones for the tax, please see the following link. The grubby UN will get their finger on our money made to reimburse Australians:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/bil...un-committees/

There are many more articles on this. This tax will do nothing but put Australia at a disadvantage. We will no longer be the envy of the world.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Agreed, it should be there purely to promote new technologies, not other countries.

It makes sense that we provide big incentives to invest in greener technologies. Taxing the **** out of Australia while everyone else pays nothing won't do anything good for us.

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Methinks they'll have HEAPS of spare time for rallies and protests if this becomes reality..... Cause there'll be bugger-all else to do here.

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Funny story about this.

Yesterday I was in Southbank and had a bunch of protesters walk by my family with their Yes to Carbon Tax shirts on. I promptly farted when they walked by and they turned and looked at me like I was a disgusting pig.

I then said "Do you want me to pay tax for that as well?"

To which they turned around and kept on with their lost cause.

Gold

[trippytaka]

I am 100% a believer in human-caused climate change.

I am 100% against this carbon tax. It will make zero-bugger-all difference.

I am 100% in favour of scrapping the scheme.

[Wise]

I have no internet patrolling wizard certificate I bought from qualifications.com or anything, but when people get up and go and protest FOR a tax, that is the sign of a good ad campaign, not science.

Why are we going to pay more on the emissions our car makes when we already pay something like 30c per litre in tax on petrol? So now I am going to be taxed for the petrol going in, and the gas coming out?

Thats not fair.

On a side note, guys, you should understand why sudszy is correcting you on the internet. If it were being done verbally he would be paying a motza in this carbon tax he is trying to uphold due to the emissions from his mouth. - Dont forget carbon comes out there when you're finished breathing too

[csv8]

Originally Posted by mickyyyy

Csv8

Do u mind if I copy and paste on other forums?

No I don't mind you posting on other Forums..but it has caused a lot of debate here. Which is good as we need to healthy debate to sort out the facts from what the Government spin Doctors tell us...Also mention it as summary of Professor Pilmers book.cheers

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Funny story about this.

Yesterday I was in Southbank and had a bunch of protesters walk by my family with their Yes to Carbon Tax shirts on. I promptly farted when they walked by and they turned and looked at me like I was a disgusting pig.

I then said "Do you want me to pay tax for that as well?"

To which they turned around and kept on with their lost cause.

That pure class mate. Thanks for the laugh.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by cheap

So what is the correct level of CO2 ppm?

well we are currently at 390ppm Nasa says it can go up 5000ppm before it starts to ruin our oxygen and does harm to us .
And plants really start to thrive at anything over 1000ppm

The thing they also say if the more warmer it gets the more melting the more natural co2 get released .
It all alot of theory's more agree the planet has been and is warming because of c02 over the last 40 years or so.

All i can tell you is this carbon tax proposed by labour will defently cut our emmisions i have no doubt about that what so ever .
We are all going to be alot worse off our economy will slow right down all of our jobs left in manufacturing will go overseas . This will reduse emmisions

[mik]

personally i`d rather see the country wear a bit of debt and encourage more solar power(instead of cutting incentives) , and by that i mean every new house built to have x amount of solar panel meterage used in the roof covering and plumbed into the the power grid.
perhaps also incentives to industry and to established homes to use as much solar as possible, if it helps to burn less coal its gotta be a good thing instead of punishing consumer and industry with more tax and a higher cost of living,
as in previous posts if industry can just pass on the extra cost of the C.T to consumer where is the benefit?

i might also mention an article that a politician says we could loose billions in coastline property if the sea level rises 1 metre in 90 years time, i`m thinking surely over the period of time people would notice this gradual rise and build move their properties accordingly, for me anyway C.T is a fail imo.

[snappy]

Tony Abbott would have you believe that the co2 problem could be stopped if we planted more trees, (anything he comes up with will incorporate business as usual for the big polluters)

I hate this term big polluters it imdeatly makes you think of big faceless company's spewing out pollution and at the same time stealing our money .


But sudzy Ive got news for you . You and me and all the people we are the big polluters .
Company's make power/electricity we use it . Stop playing the victim your the problem not a second goes bye in you life your not producing c02

[BHDOGS]

This debate is interesting i was just wonder if somebody could point out some hard evidence and some scientific reports about all these industries that will be driven off shore because of this tax? Or is it abit like climate change believe it without proof because as i pointed out other countrys have this and there industry bases haven't collapsed into ruins. After all the details of the tax havent even been released yet and everybody's ready to march on Canberra. Hell the government could of come out with the give every disabled person the cure tax and people would moan because there not disabled they shouldnt have to pay it is it because its a tax on climate change or just a tax in general i wonder.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by Wise

On a side note, guys, you should understand why sudszy is correcting you on the internet. If it were being done verbally he would be paying a motza in this carbon tax he is trying to uphold due to the emissions from his mouth. - Dont forget carbon comes out there when you're finished breathing too

Carbon Emissions of internet searches... very interesting.

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/go...ions-20090512/

In January, Google published data indicating how much energy it takes to execute a search. The study factored in all components between and including your computer, the servers in-between, and everything on Google’s end. The results were astounding to many: CO2 output for two Google searches was the same as the energy required to boil a kettle of water — about 15 grams of CO2 were emitted, 7.5 grams per search.

Since then, Google has continued to crunch the data and has derived at a value on their end of 0.2 grams per search, which is just the emissions from their servers alone. Google has also put that figure into practical terms that most of us can understand. They have equated some everyday activities (and their associated CO2 emissions) to the number of Google searches it would take to produce the same quantity of CO2 on only their servers. Here are their findings:

* A daily newspaper decomposing, emits the same as 850 Google searches.
* Doing one load of dishes in an EnergyStar dishwasher, 5100 Google searches.
* Tailpipe emissions from a five mile trip in the average U.S. automobile, 10,000 Google searches.
* The total electricity requirement of the average U.S. household per month, 3.1 million Google searches.

Providing a full month of electricity for the average U.S. home generates the same amount of CO2 as 3.1 million Google searches. And of July 2008, it was reported that in the U.S. alone Google executes 235 million searches per day. In short, Google U.S. is emitting the same quantity of CO2 as 3,870 average U.S. homes. When it’s described that way, it doesn’t seem very high considering there are 100+ million homes in the U.S.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Im confused i thought the carbon tax was for Australia to help Australia make lower emissions i didnt realise it was the world tax that would make the world produce less seriously tho its time for something to be done either way tony abbots direct action is a big load of ******** thats been proven if a carbon tax makes a difference good if it doesnt its just another tax your getting in the **** like all the other ******** ones but atleast there trying something doesnt anybody remember john howard was gonna bring in an ets aswell now all of suddenly its unfashionable again hell most countrys have an ets or are in plans to bring one in australian isnt really going it alone tons of countrys already have this or something similar and there still functioning.

Correction a handful of country's have emission trading scheme's now name one that is not in financial trouble or doesn't have record unemployment