Let’s say “Yes” to real science, the way it’s meant to be, science that relies on measurements from things like thermometers, ice cores, and satellites. Real science is about observations of the real deal, not “simulations” on a computer. 28 million weather balloons, 6000 boreholes, 3000 ocean buoys, and 30 years of satellites tell us that rising CO2 is not much to worry about.
Let say “Yes” to helping the environment by looking at real problems instead of fake ones. Let’s do practical things to stop our soil being eroded, to save our flora and fauna, and to stop real pollutants like soot, ozone and sulfur dioxide. We all know that a tax won’t solve salinity, or change the weather.
Lets say “Yes” to using our tax money wisely. Who are we kidding? Solar panels, windmills and funny light globes are not going to stop droughts, floods and nasty storms. Why put more money into the hands of people who’ve spent around 4 billion dollars putting Chinese solar panels on roofs, and pink batts in houses. We can’t control the weather and we can’t export second hand solar panels. Let’s say NO to pork barrelling, and pink-batts-that-kill, and solar panels that send us broke.
Say “Yes” to the free market. Rather than foist a fixed, fake carbon market on us, listen to what the real market it saying — it’s telling us that no one wants to buy carbon credits if they have a choice, and hardly anyone wants current renewables at current prices. Stop the subsidies, get the government out of the way, and give us a real free market.
Let’s say “Yes” to a real debate, where the government, public funded scientists and ABC stop denigrating anyone who tries to raise a scientific point they don’t approve of. We pay for these institutions, we deserve the whole truth.
Let’s say “Yes” to getting news instead of propaganda from the ABC. Did you know that in the ice cores, temperatures rise and fall first? That’s 800 years before CO2? Don’t they think voters ought to know that? Did you know market gardeners pay to pump the carbon dioxide into greenhouses, because plants grow faster, stronger, yield more fruit and need less water? Did they forget to tell you that plants prefer a climate with three times as much CO2 in the air as we have today?
And who knew that unpaid whistleblowers are rising up in protest and that 31,500 scientists don’t think we need a carbon tax? Or that 9,000 of them have PhDs. Or that skeptics include Nobel physics prize winners, NASA astronauts, and prize winning meteorologists?
If this is the most important crisis we face, why are the government and the official scientists so afraid of questions? They’ll do anything to shut down discussion. They call Nobel Prize winners “deniers” and declare “the science is settled”, yet the BOM can’t predict the weather a month from now?
We are tired of being fed lies. We are tired of being ruled by people who think they know what’s best for us, and we’ve had enough of people who want to spend our money on pie-in-the-sky projects that don’t help the environment.
Say “Yes” to an election before making changes that affect our entire economy.
The original Carbon-Cate advert is here.
The cheeky response:
Sorry, that comment was intended for the previous thread.
[No problem Patrick.. Comment moved — JN]
20
I hear the next ad will feature Humphrey B Bear and Skippy. Who do, admittedly, have more cred than Galadriel and Harry Sullivan.
20
Having seen the theme of Animal Farm played out repeatedly in supposedly civilized nations around the world, I do not hold out hope for appealing to the intelligence of the electorate. Most do not care, so they do not think.
Good luck in your election. I suspect like most of the nacent democracies (in the grand scheme of things – even 200 years is not old), the people who want to run your life will convince enough sheep to elect another Gillard soon.
10
It seems disclaimers are hot on the Alarmists web sites, ensuring that any created fiction can be hand waved away…..unlike at the ATO where there is recourse if there incorrect information posted. This gives all the Government (actually a private company) alarmists a way out once the scam collapses by pointing to others for the misleading info…..
Disclaimer
The Garnaut Climate Change Review Secretariat recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to their use of this web site and that users carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the website for their purposes.
However, the Garnaut Climate Change Review Secretariat does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to, the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this web site or on any linked site.
20
Oh, and Yes to a Royal Commission, election and ending of the AGW gravy train.
20
4; disclaimers have little legal protective capacity if they are contradicted by a represented expertise and a reasonable assumption that reliance on that expertise is intended and occurs.
10
If the ABC was relevant Part 31.</strong>
(Let them eat Cate.)
Bryan: Welcome to the program Cate Blanchett.
John: Lovely to be here Bryan.
Bryan: You’ve taken a very firm stand with you recent appearance in the recent Pro-carbon tax commercial, haven’t you?
John: As an Australian and a mother, I am passionate about preserving our environment for future generations; I don’t think I could face my children and grandchildren unless I made a call for urgent action to fight catastrophic global warming.
Bryan: So you’ve given this a lot of thought, then?
John: Absolutely Bryan, it’s a very serious issue.
Bryan: So perhaps you can help me with a few questions?
John: Fire away Bryan.
Bryan: You agree that climate changing has been happening since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
John: Absolutely.
Bryan: Even though almost all of the warming occurred before fossil fuel consumption accelerated after 1945? If mankind is the cause, why is this not reflected in the global temperature record?
John: I’d rather not answer that question.
Bryan: On what grounds?
John: That bit wasn’t in “An Inconvenient Truth”.
Bryan: Right… OK. Inconvenient Truth. Then you’d be familiar with the Vostok ice core data.
John: Of course – it was in the movie.
Bryan Which actually shows atmospheric CO2 levels rising AFTER global temperature increases, and not before? Which suggests that higher CO2 levels are not a cause of global warming, but a result of it?
John: Al Gore won an Oscar for that movie. I’ve won an Oscar too, you know.
Bryan: Cheers for that. Perhaps you can explain why global temperatures have FALLEN as well as risen throughout the last 150 years, despite a more or less constant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels? The last 10 or so years being a case in point?
John: It was for Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth. The First, I mean.
Bryan: (Puzzled) Err??
John: The Oscar, Bryan. The Oscar. Please try and keep up.
Bryan: Right… OK. Global Warming. Can you tell us why…
John: (Frustrated.) This is just so unfair! OK, I’m rich and famous – but I still have a right to an opinion, you know!
Bryan: But doesn’t your position as a high profile celebrity also mean that you have a duty to use that position responsibly, for example by engaging in informed, logical and reasoned debate? As opposed to emotional propaganda based on half-baked theory and junk science. Surely the rules of science apply to you as well?
John: Not really, Bryan, I’m only an actress. Did I mention that I won an Oscar?
10
Lets say “Yes” to a political system not dominated by professional politicians, those people who have progressed straight from being uni activists, to government intern, then political aide, to ministers, who have lived in a hermetically sealed bubble all their lives and despise everyone outside that bubble.
10
Sparky, that was brilliant. I look forward to Clarke and Dawe every week, and you’ve nailed it.
10
YOu have a gift for that! I was about to start searching for the interview before I realized it was just your creative writing. It sounded so authentic though!
10
@cohenite: #6
“disclaimers have little legal protective capacity if they are contradicted by a represented expertise and a reasonable assumption that reliance on that expertise is intended and occurs.”
Cohenite, This is an area of law that I am not familiar with.
If, say, a statement was made to influence a ‘deal making decision’ (reliance on expertise as intended occurs), and the statement proved, by fact, to be false, then could ‘represented expertise’ be replaced by the actual fact.
I ask because I have spent 14 of the last 36 hours reveiwing, in depth, the self indulgent novel that Ross Garnaut has presented to our decision makers in the MPCCC (Minority Parties Conned-by Climate Change).
The ‘Garnaut Reveiw 2011’ is, at best inaccurate, and in parts it is deceitful, Garnaut’s figures are incorrect (I can prove it) and his omissions of the true facts and figures would make ANY Spin Doctor proud.
Do you think that:
If a ‘Carbon Tax’ is imposed on Australians, based on Garnaut’s false and misleading report to the MPCCC, that the Australian people would have a case, for a Class Action against Garnaut for their losses as a result of that ‘Carbon Tax’.
My Question is based on an assumption, (from your statement), that you are a lawyer.
If you aren’t then please ignore this post, it was never intended to put you on the spot, and you certainly still know more about this kind of law than I do.
10
Great post,
The debate needs to be reframed around appropriate solutions that save the taxpayer money and improve the human condition. CO2 is a by-product of the process, its not the true cause of the problem.
Thus far, there aren’t any proposed solutions that meet these common sense goals. If there were, it would be a win win and everyone would support the proposals.
Green technology isn’t mature enough (isn’t profitable) to implement at an industrial scale. Everyone knows this yet instead of logically supporting the R&D to bring it to market as viable technology, they are forcing it into the market too early and are wasting tax dollars on folly. Politicians are great at folly but sadly short on appropriate solutions.
At some point, viable solutions will emerge but Tax for Crap isn’t going to win anyone votes.
10
“I don’t need electricity for my life. I would be complained even when I watched my TV lighted by candles.”
This has been said by Ľubica Trubiniová, a director of Slovakian branch of Greenpeace and a leader of a campaign For Nuclear-Free Slovakia.
She has made headlines in press with the declaration, of course. Look at one of them:
http://i.zpravy.cz/pes/11/054/pmaxi/WAG3b806a_vyroktydne.jpg
Isn’t she cute? 🙂
10
Go, you good thing, go!
10
Say YES to an election:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1mWOlmk58
10
Sorry guys, I didn’t scroll down enough, that link I just posted is to the same video as Jo put on the original post. Early in the morning….
10
I have been reading all sorts of Climate blogs and following some of the comments and I’m left with the feeling that far too many people are. in some way, apologetic that the way we live naturally involves CO2 production.
All we need to do is to convince enough people that, in order to feed the world’s increasing population we need an increase in CO2. If it warms the world a little as well – so be it – I’d rather live warm and fed than frozen and hungry.
10
Speedy
Loved your skit. I’ve nominated it for Climate Bloggers of the year award.
Can you make it 750 words?
Go for it Speedy I reckon you’ll win it hands down
10
See if you can spot a theme from the latest advice regarding the carbon (sic) price (sic):
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9562052/senior-economists-call-for-carbon-price/
I shall make it a tad easier by quoting the relevant sections and using a bit of selective emphasis:
Also:
No vested interests there … oh no … they are doing it to save the planet! Bankers are such selfless individuals as we all know from personal experience.
10
Let’s say Yes to carbon based life forms!
Let’s say Yes to ignoring hypocrites who have no qualms about telling us what to do while they do the opposite and continue to overindulge and over consume.
Let’s say Yes to not accepting ideology, Dogma and political spin being forced onto our kids at school.
10
Bulldust:
June 2nd, 2011 at 7:35 am
You didn’t need to make it so easy Bulldust, I went straight to your link prior to reading your quotes, after the second paragraph I was on to your point.
10
I have the subtlety of a brick outhouse … that might be Dutch half of my heritage 🙂
10
PhilJourdan@#3: Australians aren’t stupid. They know they are being had by a scam. Their only crime was not being able to make a firm decision about who should govern them last August. They did not and will never vote for the tax that is now being forced upon them, which was specifically disowned by the Prime Minister who is now demanding it. Her political career is over, but the Australian Constitution gives her another two years and five months before she is formally thrown out of office. The Australian Constitution also gives a radical party with 12% of the popular vote control over policy that will wreck the Australian economy for the next six years. But be clear: Australians will not forgive or forget. They will be extremely vengeful when they are next allowed to vote on Saturday, November 30, 2013, the last date until which the incumbent rabble can hold out before its hijacking of Australian democracy is finally ended.
10
Today’s Australian reprints an article by Anatole Kaletsky, Editor-at-Large and Principal Economic Commentator of The Times, in which he predicts that Germany will emerge as big winners in the long run by banning nuclear and putting all its energy eggs in the ‘renewable’ basket.
Kaletsky’s predictive skills in economics are legendary — whatever he predicts you can be pretty sure won’t happen.
10
But Jo, solving real problems is so much harder than solving imaginary ones. And worse, it requires you to let others do a lot of the work and get a lot of the credit. Now just how are our current governments to be expected to do that? Sheesh!
All sarcasm aside, isn’t that a big part of the problem?
10
Speedy @ 7.
Brilliant! Send that in to the ABC ! If you’d rather not, can I have your permission to do so?
10
The downturn in the last quarter is blamed by Swan on floods etc. He failed to acknowledge that personal savings have reached a 25 year high which I presume comes from the fear of the future including new taxes. People are becoming cautious and with good reason. Being cautious is sensible but is not necessarily great for retailers. This economy has been moved from production to service over the past decades as tariffs and free trade make manufacturing and even agriculture cheaper off shore. We have dug this hole and now we have to live with it.
The general indebtedness of the US and Europe will result in less imports from China which in turn will reduce the need for our resources. The future looks painful already without Julia’s CO2 tax. The same factors and her need to return to surplus almost guarantee the introduction of the tax. As we all know the tax is a revenue raiser and vote buyer for the poor. It will fail and within 2 years Julia will be thrown out. That’s the good news but I am not looking forward to the intervening months of misery.
10
manalive@23
Renewables? Don’t forget Old King Coal. And its considerable use of which Germany has gone all coy about. Ahh Natural CO2 generating Gas for Germans. Also good Aussie coal to Japan now up to $81/tonne post Fukushima.
http://business.scotsman.com/business/George-Kerevan-Old-king-coal.6777547.jp
10
Here is where to complain about this Blatently Misleading Propaganda Ad……
http://www.adstandards.com.au/
10
Forget Global Warming: Germany Goes Back To Coal……
http://thegwpf.org/energy-news/2754-forget-global-warming-germany-goes-back-to-coal.html
10
let’s say yes to an election and the coalition be warned they will get no votes if they have any plans for CO2.
1 June: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: World Bank warns of ‘failing’ international carbon marketReport shows collapse in market with just $1.5bn of credits traded internationally last year
(Weird) Photo Caption: The UN carbon market is deeply dependent on the European emissions trading system, because European heavy industries are the biggest buyers of UN carbon credits.
(the “it’s for the poor” pretense) From its start in 2005, when the Kyoto protocol finally came into force, to 2009 the system generated a total of $25bn for developing countries. But last year’s $1.5bn was less even than the amount paid for credits in the first year of operation.
“This bodes very badly for the countries we are trying to help,” said Andrew Steer, envoy for climate change at the World Bank. “The [carbon] market is failing us. It has done very good things in the past but it is not delivering what we feel is necessary.”…
The UN is now trying to ensure that the trade in credits continues even if the protocol is not renewed. Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief, said there was broad agreement among countries that carbon trading should continue, but said investors also needed to look beyond the carbon markets to ways of financing emissions reductions independently of the protocol – for instance through “green bonds” issued by governments or the World Bank…
But the future of the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) is also in doubt, according to leaked documents. If the EU meets its target of improving energy efficiency by 20% by 2020, then the price of carbon permits under its trading system is likely to fall dramatically. This will in turn make it less financially attractive for companies to invest in low-carbon technologies…
(give Greenpeace the last crazy words) Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: “A small group of dirty companies have spent years trying to undermine the European emissions trading scheme – in the process netting billions of euros of free polllution permits. Now these same companies are arguing that Europe should ‘rescue’ the ETS by abandoning its energy-saving plans. With global climate pollution going through the roof, and the Arctic ice cap melting, only a lunatic would argue that now is the time to waste more energy. The only ‘rescue package’ the scheme needs is a new 30% emissions reduction target for the EU – a target supported by a a growing movement of Europe’s biggest businesses and employers, including Unilever, Google, Ikea and Vodaphone.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/world-bank-failing-carbon-markets
10
useful little quote I found..
“An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” Mahatma Gandhi
10
Say yes to real science- a lofty but probably unrealisable dream. Say yes to proper discourse, science should be able to look after itself.
There are areas of disagreement which should be simple but are unresolvable by commonsense discourse. For example, no amount of digging can provide an authoritative answer to the question “is CO2 a greenhouse gas”. There are plausible proponents for both sides but in this argument no-one can be trusted and I don’t know enough myself to evaluate the evidence. On balance, I think it probably is, but what do I know?
On the other hand, science has really very little to do with some aspects. There are clear simple lies, posing as science (corals do live in warm water, the oceans will never become acidic, there is no realistic prospect of baseload renewable energy in our lifetimes, a warmer world will be a wetter- and better- world, there was a medieval warm period) underpinning the warmist cause. Arguably the biggest lie of all is the term “carbon pollution”, but there is a big list of contenders. You don’t need a lot of scientific training to pick these lies.
And there are the statistical lies- ocean acidity- show us the baseline? Hurricane/cyclone/typhoon activity- what is the baseline? Drought/flood- unprecedented in Australia? Sea level rise- devise your own question on that one. The temperature record, with its northern hemisphere bias and UHI effects just can’t be trusted. Perhaps good science is just good statistics? Global warming aint good science!
What we need most is good explanation- my tiny wheels grind very slowly on their own, though they grind fairly finely in the end. I have been a sceptic for decades, based almost entirely on my belief that a warmer world would be a better world, but it is only in the last few weeks that I have come to understand the fundamental importance of the (admittedly often stated but little explained) fact that CO2 rise lags warming. Is it true or is it another “laws of thermodynamics” argument?
And finally, we need to scrap the political rhetoric. I am often a little uncomfortable that the issue splits left/right. There is no need or reason for this.
10
The world seems to be full of academically schooled people whose training is of such low standard or whose attitude lacks the right commitment that they never made it into the corporate, productive world. Many of these people found employment in governments and state sponsored or state owned research institutions. Here they spend their time gathering second and third hand knowledge that increasingly tends to steer them away from measurable reality and increasingly towards political desirability.
See for instance: http://climategate.nl/2011/05/29/zondagstelling-overschot-middelmatige-academici-doet-maatschappij-vastlopen/
These people are kept in these jobs by politicians whose power and political status depends on all the reports produced by this Bureaucratic Academic Complex (BAC). And because the members of this BAC have all the time in the world and nothing better to do then writing glowing reports about themselves and their own achievements they tend to be believed. After all, any form of “Science” is nowadays seen as the gospel. Having been schooled in keeping their political masters happy they tend to write their reports and proposals in such a way that it will be useful for these politicians. The paper mountains they produce takes all views (and insight) of the normal society away from them. And these mountains are then in turn being used to defend their position and their weird ideas with great tenacity. Fear, shock and awe are very useful tools for these people. Panicology thrives within those circles, because the louder and the more scary their message, the more chance thy have that somebody (like politicians) will take notice. The best way of dealing with this ever increasing power that these people manage to gain is to simply close most government departments and “research” institutions.
Most of those will never be missed by the society. Then we have to make sure that such accumulation of bureaucratic power will not happen again. This will calm the politicians and will allow society to find it’s own way without this ongoing meddling of no-hopers and deranged individuals.
10
Jo. Your let’s say “Yes” to real science message is simple and says it all, but how can we get it out to the public when we’re up against the seemingly limitless supply of taxpayer’s money being thrown into the Carbon Tax scam misinformation campaign in all forms of the MSM?
FYI: a refresher and update of my early May efforts to shame the ABC into some balance!
To Lateline Feedback
Subject: Pollution associated with wind farms and turbines
Comment: Although it’s too much to hope that you would deviate from your totally biased approach as regards every facet of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming scam, it would be good (indeed amazing) if you presented some of the downside of Greens/Labor proposed “clean” renewable energy schemes (which of course don’t include the obvious options of hydro and/or nuclear)!
Just Google “Baotou and pollution” and link to the UK Daily Mail expose’. They’ve already done the work but you and other MSM have made sure it’s not known in Australia!
Lateline
Below is the result of your feedback form submitted on Friday, May 06, 2011 at 09:02:12
RE: WWW Form Submission
Thanks for your email. It’s much appreciated and you we will keep it in mind. Please stay in touch and keep us posted if you see anything you think should be on Lateline.
Best.
Supervising Producer
To Lateline.
Thank you your not unexpected reply that you would keep the Baotou expose’ in mind as I’m 100% sure that’s where it will stay – in mind!
You have probably saved any viewers Lateline has left from the distressing sight of rabid Labor warmist Tony Jones choking on his words giving them information from the other side actually based on known and provable facts instead of computer-modelled alarmist drivel!
Heaven forbid that as Australia goes down the gurgler due to the lying efforts of Gillard,Brown,Combet, Milne, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Windsor, Flim Flam Flannery, Karoly et al; the once respected ABC would provide some balanced reporting.
It appears that along with balance, integrity, commonsense, logic and real investigative journalism have left the ABC Building!
In the old once respected ABC (and yes, I’m even old enough to remember that) the Four Corners Team would have been all over this story like a rash!
So in reality, thank you for nothing, but at least you will not be able to say you were not aware of the pollution at Baotou!
Yours in deep frustration and genuine sadness for those who will suffer under the unnecessary, environmentally useless and economy destroying Carbon Tax.
Reply from: Lateline
In fact we’ve got plans to look at renewable energy and where it’s at – including associated problems with each technology. This fits in well with a story like that. At the moment we are tied up with the budget but we’ll definitely do it before the carbon price is announced in July.
Supervising Producer
Although I no longer watch Lateline nor any other ABC Labor propaganda programs, I do read some transcripts I hear about through the blogs. It will be interesting to see the tone and substance of that renewable energy program if indeed it does eventuate!
Is it too much to hope that the ABC will finally exhibit some balance? For those who still watch -keep your eye out this month!
10
Yes! The lies keep on coming.
WRONG!
Why can’t the truth be told instead of the constant lies of AGW people and politicians. Check some of the observations in this article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/
Why is the advertising wanting us to say YES? The people of Australia want to have the choice of this CO2 Tax.
If it comes in – I will be calculating all CO2 Tax amounts from invoices, then deducting them off my BAS/GST payments. It is illegal what they are doing!
10
Here comes the “ocean acidification” scam, watch out!
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/here-comes-ocean-acidification-scam.html
10
compare the report below on the Minerals Council’s annual dinner, with the headlines elsewhere e.g.
ABC: Gillard full of praise at miners’ big dinner
ABC: PM charms the mining sector
Australian: Carbon price look like $20 a tonne
2 June: Australian News Network:Australian miners warn government against carbon price
The Council says the carbon plan the Government is considering would be the most aggressive carbon pricing scheme in the world.
Mr Johnston said he still held the same opinion as he did 18 months ago – putting a price on carbon is the wrong policy.
“In the absence of a binding international agreement on greenhouse gas emission reductions, we must safeguard the international competitiveness of our trade exposed industries,” he said.
“The current proposed cprs style scheme fails to do this.”
http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201106/3233531.htm?desktop
btw it’s time for CFMEU members to defy their leaders and write letters/articles for the media on how their Union has betrayed them.
10
FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS……..
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
Some reading there for you “gnome”.
10
Jo, you commented that the BOM can’t predict the weather a month from now. In fact they can’t predict the weather the day before. Out of curiosity I kept a record of the Adelaide BOM’s forecasts for a month based on their forecast at 4:00 pm the day before and then recorded the actual maximum and minimum temperatures. If you allow an error of plus or minus 1C (I chose these values because the warmists are saying that a 2C rise will be the beginning of the end) then the BOM got the maximum temperature right 54.8% of the time and the minimum temperature 19.4%. It makes you think doesn’t it!
10
And this is just great!
More lies!
Kids internet website in Australia promoting CO2 Tax!
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/ca/Carbon_tax
Behind The News on ABC for teachers, students etc
http://www.abc.net.au/btn/story/s3201433.htm
It’s going to get worse with time?
10
As an expat Aussie, I am in amazement reading other blogs and media comments that the CO2 tax is so readily supported with the same old, tired arguments as though action is required immediately and without dissent or the world will end tomorrow. I suppose the Labor government feels it can do what it likes when the population is riding on the coat tails of booming mining and some agricultural industries. And a little pro-tax ad certainly helps in getting a few fence-sitters committed to the cause. Promise everyone a cash windfall and they can do what they like.
I am in despair about the decrepit state of Australian politics. Both Labor and Liberal parties are devoid of people with guts. Thank goodness for one or two Nationals who must feel like they are jousting at windmills. It’s become a country run by a committee of hand selected executives who influence the outcome and thus feel emboldened by opinion polls. The ACTU has dissolved into a breeding ground of Labor Party wannabees. And the worst part…the Australian individual!…who has the attitude that the government is an organization that owes him/her…who believes that money grows on trees and the intended tax taken will be handed back with interest in compensation…who has no idea of international competitiveness. How did the Australian sense of right and individualism sink to the pit of such submissiveness?
I’m in the renewable energy business, but am no supporter of AGW. I know the cost of PV panels. I know the things are cost prohibitive without massive financial subsidies. Someone has to pay and it’s BIG. I despair as I watch a wonderful country get sucked (or suckered) into a nanny-state pseudo-dependency like the wayward boys in Pinocchio. It’ll be too late to turn back when the ears and tails start to sprout and the hands turn into hoofs.
I sooo looked forward to visiting home. Not any more. Some might say this is a good thing, however when Australians aren’t looking forward to visiting the country, what does this say about tourists and businesses? Good luck.
10
I really don’t know why anyone is arguing about climate change etc any more. Its not about that anymore.
Putting the real fact forward will have NO effect on whether this tax is bought in or not.
Knowing that it will make absolutely no difference to world wide CO2 levels will not change the tax.
We will NOT get the chance to say “yes” or to say a resounding “NO“
10
gotta love Barnaby!
2nd June 2011
Media Release
Labor still can’t lie straight in bed
Greg Combet has decided to have a go at me for actually answering a straight question on Lateline last night.
The paradox of course is that Greg won’t answer a straight question. The paradox of course is that when I ask Greg a straight question the answer will be silence.
How much will your Green-Labor-Independent carbon tax, Greg, cool the planet? What will be the reduction in temperature from an $11 billion carbon tax imposed on a country that produces 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions?
You will never hear anyone in the government give a straight answer to this straight question. Until they are upfront with you, you should understand that they are trying to inspire guilt and faux righteousness in proxy for facts?
The fact that they ignore is that a carbon tax on Australians is a gesture. It’s a gesture whose only discernible effect will be to exacerbate the problems so clearly evident in last quarter’s record decline in GDP.
The tax will fall on people who can’t pass on the tax and become poorer as excess cash is taken from their lives. Why should these people be used to assuage the feigned guilt of people who are doing vastly better.
I also note that Greg Combet announces the support of financial market economists for a “carbon” price as some kind of victory.
If I were the prospective trader of carbon credits I would definitely find myself a suite of economists to bestow the beauty of me making squillions from punting paper on a colourless, odourless gas. It would be a splendid idea not because of what it is going to do to the climate but what it would do to change the renovations to my house. It would be a splendid idea because it would make the jacuzzi a real possibility.
So Greg Combet you support the people, and good luck to them, who have seen you coming and are going to make an absolute bucket load, and I’ll support the people who are going to have to pay for it.
10
And that Question? I think it’s this one:
Carbon tax capers with our local Laugh-In hosts, comedy duo Jonesy and Joycey. Act I – A Straight Answer: (thanks to Tim Blair)
TONY JONES: I’m asking you about what you’d do about it if you got into government, since you’ve promised – well let’s work this out.
BARNABY JOYCE: Well I’ll give you a straight answer.
TONY JONES: No, first of all: how will you …
BARNABY JOYCE: OK, I won’t give you a straight answer.
TONY JONES: OK, well give me a straight answer on that.
BARNABY JOYCE: Straight answer is of course we’ve said from the outset that we would not introduce a tax and we’ll repeal it if it comes in, and of course if you’re repealing the tax, you’re repealing the mechanisms that go with it.
10
gnome @ 33
That is a tough ask. One of the strongest supporters of the AGW scam is our current PM (ignoring all science). That makes it a political issue.
10
“Straight answer is of course we’ve said from the outset that we would not introduce a tax and we’ll repeal it if it comes in, and of course if you’re repealing the tax, you’re repealing the mechanisms that go with it.”
looks like a straight answer to me.. the “how” cannot be answered until you see how the legislation is implemented.
10
incoherent rambler@46
Whilst I would like to empathise with gnome on the Left – Right divide the issue of AGW is really driven primarily by the Left wing’s presuppositions or ethos.
Conservatives generally start with the proposition if it isn’t broke don’t fix it. “Progressives” on the other hand are driven by their need to purge the world of the evil effects of capitalistic, Big Business and things like Free Markets and bi and multi lateral trade agreements. They swoon in delight over the imposition of tariffs on imports which of course makes things dearer for everyone including the workers.
So the language of the Left in the climate debate is “hit the big polluters” who are invariably identified as being from the capitalist, big business class. Gillard shows herself as a natural Lefty by adopting this “class warfare” language.
Conservatives also known as Right wingers are not suckers for the ethos of class warfare and would be so bold as to suggest that it is the workers who are collectively the big polluters and the capitalists kindly provide adequate, uninterrupted electric power to sustain the lovely lifestyle that only big business can give them.
Though we should concentrate on the issue of ACC it is the Lefties like Gillard and crew who see in this issue an opportunity to advance their Left wing causes one of which is big polluter ACC.
10
I’m prejudiced of course, but maybe a little re-write of this sentence is due:
“We don’t want to pay for the consequences of our actions. If negative consequences arise from our pollution, we want it to be your problem, not ours.”
10
Incoherent Rambler:
Ignoring all science? Maybe a teensy weensy bit of hyperbole here?
10
Worh revisiting David Deming’s testimony to the US Senate.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
He later named the one who made the statement about getting rid of the MWP, who, when confronted about it, claimed he was quoted out of context. Yeah, ‘course he was!
I liked the reference to Joseph Priestley. Even in those times they had agenda driven pseudo-science.
The more things change…
10
I want to say NO but I can’t. We need a referendum at least, if not an election.
10
I say YES to all the above… especially the real science bit…
10
One of the main tasks when the ALP/Greens loose power is to provide rehabilitation to the Alarmists and their supporters. The dismantling of the ETS will have quite a few who need to be retrained. The Global Warming scam has University Climate Departments, Federal and State Governments bureaus that will cease to have any relevance. TAFE and other institutions will need to retrained them so as to put these lost people into worthwhile employment. Many Bankers will need to be put in productive and worthwhile work
The psychological trauma of school children will also need to be addressed as they are told the truth about the deceivers agenda. Their respect for teachers in general will be a concern.
10
The World Bank announced yesterday Carbon Trading looked like it
was failing? Who would invest in it, other than Australia?
Britain sold 8% of its credits for 14 Euros a tonne recently, they are only allowed to sell 12%. Please Mother Nature send more
snow?
10
Ross Ganaughts report is on line. He doesn’t exclude Agriculture
like NZ has just started including in it in their failing carbon
trading junket.
10
Carbon Price goes up in Germany?
WHY? Because of the extra 40 millions tonnes that will result from the Nuclear shut down?
http://www.steelguru.com/international_news/German_nuclear_shut_down_to_add_40_million_tonnes_CO2_-_Report/207990.html
The anti nuclear Greens drive popularity for burning coal????
These guys are plain NUTS!!!
10
Keith H
Yep, I’ll send it to the ABC, with a note asking why they aren’t the ones asking these questions…
Cheers
Speedy
10
[…] Her post also includes several references to other articles from various experts, they are briefly mentioned with occasional comment further below. Let’s say “Yes” to real science […]
10
Mr Caton should team up with Peter Garret.
They could start a reality TV show called “Really Hot Property”
10
This appears to be an illegal ad. As a Victorian government appointed representative, Mark Wootton cannot legally authorise policy advertising on behaf of the government or any other arganisation, charitable or not. Any lawyers want to confirm this?
10
John Brookes
Got a couple of simple questions for you John (and any of the other trolls).
Just for a moment let’s consider the case of climate really being cyclical, as suggested in the last thread, and as taught as science when I was in high school in the Sixties, and as evidenced by all the observable facts up to and including the present.
In that case the world is going into 30 to 80 years of possibly quite severe cooling with:
reduced surplus food capacity since much of that growing capacity has been diverted to the production of biofuels – at the urging of eco-Fascists such as yourself;
a critical shortage of excess baseload energy capacity as a result of 20 years of diverting capital and resources to the construction of largely useless windmills and solar farms – at the urging of eco-Fascists such as yourself;
Nations now too bankrupt to address these issues even if the means and the political will existed to so – which they don’t.
If that were the case, John, then it is quite possible that hundreds of millions of people are going to die horrible deaths over the next decade or so, and that would make you and the other eco-Fascists the biggest mass-murdering psychopaths in all history.
The questions John:
Do people like you ever stop to consider the consequences of your actions, should you prove to be wrong? and
What is your “Plan B” to save a sizable chunk of humanity that you have condemned to death if it turns out you are wrong?
10
[…] Her post also includes several references to other articles from various experts, they are briefly mentioned with occasional comment further below. Let’s say “Yes” to real science […]
10
Oh how they suck up the IPCC (International Panel of Climate Crooks). Who are the only outfit that actually HAVE data (fake) that (trys) to prove warming.
Well can we actually lay a complaint against this moronic ad that wasted god knows whos money?
10
TrueNews@11; all I can say is that Garnaut’s disclaimer would not offer much protection to any legal action.
10
Bush bunny: there plenty of snow coming! Another little Iceage!
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eminent-geophysicist-rejects-global-warming-theory-says-world-on-verge-of-m/
10
memoryvault @ 61:
JB has already stated population reduction as one of his goals. That seems to be the common belief held by warmists. The big question is why? And, what can be done about it?
It is interesting that as organised religion wanes in our society, malthusianism grows. I’m no fan of religion but, I think there is more than a corresponding relationship there, particulary given the lack of an 800 year lag.
10
The Real Universe @ 62
See the link by Damian Allen at 29…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Dave @ 41.
Interesting to read the kids comments at your “Behind the News” ABC link. Seems a lot of them haven’t been taken in by the scam!
Speedy @ 58
Good on you mate! I do think ridiculing the rubbish put out to support the warmist’s nonsense could be a very effective way to fight this stupid tax. The counter video Jo highlighted in her post is a good example. I’d encourage others to also pepper the ABC with some facts and suggestions for items they should cover. Every little helps. All the best.
10
Jo,
The accuracy of science was lost long ago.
I used to listen to scientists and believed everything they we telling as they are the “experts” in their fields.
When listening to scientists now many use words like about or around, not known for sure or accurate.
I inverted a turbine for the curiosity of what would happen. Having the energy come from the center rather than all the current turbines of energy coming in from the circumference. Ripped it apart into understanding how every molecule reacted and interacted. This gave me an understanding of circular motion but still other parts such as centrifugal force was still a curiosity. So, I created a coils spring with weights on spokes to understand how compression is achieved in circular motion and how this interacted with the changing of the turbine blade density itself, shifting the weight of it’s mass.
This gave me a good understanding of how circular motion energy works on planets and suns. BUT this is only in a flat form and not a orb or planet form. So I had to do a great deal of research into this as well.
This all totally conflicts with the LAWS of science and the theories generated. Theories of the day are generated by what technology is around at the time. Current science NEVER reviews old science to new technology. This has generated a mass of misinformation and bad, bad science.
10
Memoryvault, if we enter a period of rapid cooling and severe consequences, then we would be in big trouble! The one thing we can be absolutely sure about is that attempting to turn the cooling around by burning coal and oil couldn’t possibly stop the cooling 🙂
10
BTW, why no mention of the public rally you guys are having on Sunday? I’d love to attend….
10
John Brookes @ 69
No John Brookes, burning coal and oil would not stop the cooling.
But it would generate electrical power so we could stay warm despite the cold.
Just as burning coal and oil would generate electrical power so we could stay cool if the planet warms.
Windmills and solar “power” on the other hand, contribute nothing regardless of which way the climate goes.
And the utter folly of a “carbon tax”, in either case, is worthy of nothing but scorn.
Now, you didn’t actually get around to answering the questions, so I’ll ask them again.
What is your “Plan B”, and
Are comfortable with the title mass-murder that history will bestow on you?
10
John Brookes @ 69
I believe we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt and continue to use fossil fuels. After all, we have very good evidence (e.g. http://WWW.CO2 Science)of enhanced plant growth at higher CO2 concentrations.
I suppose the irony of this position is lost on you…
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
John Brookes @ 70
BTW If there is a rally you’re interested in, why don’t you just google for details?
It’s apparently how you get all your other information.
That is, if it’s not on Septic Science or UnReal Climate.
10
In the warmed houses and cars it will. The extra CO2 will also help fend off starvation of both man and wildlife.
10
Matt at post # 53:
Did you mean all those unverified climate modeling science reports?
10
John Brookes @49,
And there you have it! Nothing gets through that — a fanatic as I said.
10
More failed predictions !!
Alarmist said New York & Washington could be gone by the year 2000 oops!
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/153463/20110527/global-warming-president-nixon-daniel-patrick-moynihan.htm
President Nixon was told: sea level would rise by 10 feet in 31 years…..
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/nixon-was-told-sea-level-would-rise-by.html?
10
Damian Allen @ 79
Loved this little snippet from your Lubos Motl Link.
“Back in 1969, no serious action against CO2 began because Hubert Heffner, a science vice-czar, answered that there were actually two camps, namely global warming doomsayers and global cooling doomsayers. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise,”.
Amazing how many “scientists” of the global cooling brigade were able to slip so seamlessly into the global warming group when it became apparent where the most grants money was going to be!
10
Jo,
Just in case you haven’t come across this post – I have posted it, emailed Greg Combet about the article in my blog and asked him for comments.
I refer to “Out of their own mouths, AGW a fraud” ref
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
Regards, Ken
10
Damian Allen: #79
Is somebody (Jo?) keeping a record of all of these failed predictions (both “authoritative”, and “reportage”)?
If collected together in time sequence, or by topic, they could be the basis of a great book.
I am thinking that it would be unusual to have a book written collectively by a blog (defined as a collection of people who primarily only know each other as commentators or contributors to the blog). It would be an interesting experiment in the use of the medium, in and of itself.
If it was done by topic, each chapter could start by painting a word picture that was an amalgam of all of the dire predictions that the alarmists have made about the “future” world in that topic area. The picture could then be unpicked; alarmist statement, by alarmist statement (with full references) showing how and why each prediction did not come to pass. Any residual change to the environment between the times the predictions were made, and the present, could then be explained rationally (with alternatives where they are viable). This approach might actually have the affect of toning down some of the more rabid alarmist press.
Another advantage of this, would be that any prediction the alarmists make from that point on could be questioned, “taking the dubious nature of previous predictions by that particular person or group”, into account. They could have a score card.
The “tale of fail” (title?) would also clearly demonstrate that the precautionary principle actually has the potential to do more harm than good.
I would be happy to assist if others are interested, and if people with more (real) knowledge of the subject than I, are prepared to undertake the heavy lifting. The position of “editor in charge of semicolons” comes to mind; or is that too ambitious for a lowly analyst?
Just thinking different …
10
Statements from Eco criminals!
Some of the comments in this link
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
would have been hung at Nuremburg 60 years ago!
Followers of the warmists be warned.. whom you may echo…
10
Let’s say “Yes” to research into the influence of global warming on the accuracy of bum cancer screening tests.
‘Colorectal cancer screening: Will global warming affect the accuracy of FIT testing?’
http://gut.bmj.com/content/59/11/1451.extract
10
pension funds need to be warned by each of us not to go down this route. as for the poorer countries being coerced into opting for high-priced renewables (which is happening all over), as far as i’m concerned, it is unconscionable:
1 June: Reuters: IFC hopes to tap pensions for climate capital
The World Bank investment arm, the International Finance Corporation, hopes to entice pension funds to inject capital into fighting climate change in the next few months, the global head of its climate business group said.
Pension and sovereign wealth funds control an estimated $28 trillion but less than one percent currently goes into climate-related activity.
The United Nations wants to steer at least $100 billion a year of investment into combating climate change by 2020.
“In an ideal world, 80 percent of the money should come from the private sector,” Mohsen Khalil told Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of a carbon conference on Wednesday in Barcelona, Spain.
Pension funds could provide a large source of private capital but have been cautious about investing in the sector…
Pension funds are currently more reluctant than other investors to put money into clean technology and climate change due to the risks of a sometimes changing regulatory environment.
“Of course pension funds are more cautious because people don’t want to see their pensions eroding,” Khalil said…
Demand for CDM credits has fallen due to the lack of clarity around market rules when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012…
The projects will mainly be in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors and will focus on developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Khalil said…
The fund forms part of the IFC’s overall strategy to make at least 20-25 percent of all its investment and advisory activities climate-friendly by 2013.
“This equals a direct contribution of around $3.5 billion,” Khalil said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/01/us-ifc-fund-idUSTRE7504EU20110601
10
The real science is telling us the Sun is slowing down, which if sustained might mean a solar grand minimum. This will translate into a gradual decline in world temps which might be buffered to a small degree by our activity. It is bad timing for a carbon tax right now that will become a huge burden, just as the decal plant in Victoria will prove. Tony needs to stand up and stop playing games.
NH temps will feel it most as they have over the last few winters, solar cycle 24 is still on track to follow SC5 which is the first cycle of the Dalton Minimum.
10
Lew Jones @28
“Ahh Natural CO2 generating Gas for Germans. Also good Aussie coal to Japan now up to $81/tonne post Fukushima.”
Of cause you meant £81 a tonne or AU$124
“In April, the London-listed mining group Xstrata signed a contract with the Chugoku Electric Power of Japan worth £81 a tonne for Australian coal. That signalled a 30 per cent hike on last year’s level.”
It’s worse (or better) than we thought
10
Alan@87
Thank you Alan. You can see I’m not up with the price of coal and forgot I was reading,too thoughtlessly, a Scots paper.
10
Thanks Ken @ 81. I think many Greens members and voters would be horrified if they really knew what was going on.
10
@ Ian, 89. Although I have been hearing these sort of behind-the-scenes plans and activities for a couple of years, the evidence is only just coming to the surface. It is disturbing, to say the least.
The question is, how many individuls of the groups themselves know exactly what goes on? Certainly few of the voters. Last week I became aware of the Greens in Germany promoting this major Transformation. Now am aware of local groups. Which politicians are involved? Garnaut is certainly part of the new deal.
Not sure about the ethics here but I have posted a few relevant articles at
http://tgrule.wordpress.com which may interest you.
Thank goodness for Jo’s blog, she is our pioneer of climate change truths.
I was hoping for a comment from her but its early yet.
10
Pat @ 85.
Many Pension Funds, including the BBC, are already heavily invested in the climate change scam. e.g.,
“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors.
There are currently over 70 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, representing around €6trillion.” For full details:
http://www.iigc.org/
Also google BBC pension fund and see why the BBC was so heavily biased towards the AGW cause.
10
About that advert with Cate Blanchette… consider the following:
Ii the science on global warming is so good, why are we told lies?
That is the true disgrace of those behind the ad that features Cate Blanchett telling us to “say yes” to the Gillard Government’s carbon dioxide tax.
It’s not that it stars a multi-millionaire actor blithely instructing the little people to pay a tax that she wouldn’t even feel herself.
It’s not that it stars a hypocrite telling us to cut our emissions while she herself jets off to Cannes, New York and LA, and helps to flog luxury Audi cars.
No, it’s the lies that should shame Blanchett and the ad’s other star, Michael Caton, of Packed to the Rafters, who are not responsible for them, but speak the lines put in their mouths.
It’s the flagrant lies in this ad that should shame all the green groups and unions which made the wretched thing — and that should warn the rest of us there is much less to this scare than such shameless people claim.
How dare they? And where are the regulators? Does the Advertising Standards Bureau exempt global warming alarmists from its demand that “ads shall not be misleading or deceptive”?
The lies start with the very first shot of the ad, showing Caton standing under black skies made filthy by a power station billowing soot –labelled “carbon”.
Says Caton: “What if we say yes to making big companies pay when they pollute our skies? We’d be saying yes to less carbon pollution.”
Stop right there.
First, where in Australia are our skies black with “carbon”?
Answer: nowhere. The ad describes a problem we don’t actually have.
Do our power stations — the main target of the carbon dioxide tax — actually belch out black smoke like that?
No. Most coal-fired ones here emit little more than steam and invisible gas. Drive past one and see for yourself.
So what power station are we shown in this ad?
The Battersea plant in Britain.
Does it vomit out black soot like that?
No, it was closed almost 30 years ago.
So will the Government’s tax close the Battersea plant? Don’t be an idiot.
Well, will the tax at least remove that sooty carbon in our skies Caton wants gone?
No, because the sign perched over Caton’s head deceives, too. The Government’s “carbon” tax is not actually designed to remove carbon, which is a solid, but carbon dioxide, which is a gas that’s invisible, as you can see when you breathe out.
And that is what makes Blanchett’s big scene completely wrong.
She appears in the ad, trilling that the tax would be “finally doing something about climate change”, and demonstrating that change by replacing the sooty skies with a clean, sun-filled one.
That imagery is another lie.
No, this tax has got nothing at all to do with giving us cleaner and sunnier skies. Zero. Zip.
Pretending it will is a contemptible deceit — and so are most of the other claims put in the mouths of the unwitting actors in this ad.
How about the actor who claims that by saying “yes” to the Government’s tax, we’ll be saying “yes to new money for clean energy that never runs out”?
One of the great problems with solar and wind power is that it does indeed run out.
Solar power stops when the sun doesn’t shine, and wind turbines stop turning when the wind dies.
This is not some silly debating point. It’s one of the hard facts that makes solar and wind power so horribly expensive.
To switch to such unreliable power sources means we still need backup power plants to take over when the renewables fail. That’s twice the infrastructure to guarantee the same power.
But back to the lying ad, which also shows a woman claiming we’d be saying “yes to help for people struggling
with bills”.
Actually, the reverse is true. The tax will instead make those bills an even bigger struggle, because it will drive up the cost of electricity and everything made with it.
Only half the money the tax raises will come back in compensation for just some Australians, and no compensation will be enough for those whose jobs will be killed off by the higher cost of power.
Then there’s the claim by another woman in the ad that we’d be saying “yes to better health for our kids”.
Pardon? Where’s the proof for that emotive claim?
This seems a desperate attempt to suggest the Government’s tax will cut asthma-causing soot, rather than plant-stimulating carbon dioxide.
And then there is the ad’s ultimate fraud.
Just “say yes”, it urges.
But where? When? To whom?
The ad suggests we do actually have a choice — that the Government may even put the question to a vote in an election.
But as we know, we’ll get this tax without us ever having said “yes”.
Indeed, 146 of the 150 people in our House of Representatives were elected at the last election on the specific promise that they’d say “no” to it.
Yet here it is, to be imposed on us next year with no mandate. All we get is this ad, telling us to say “yes” to something to which our consent is in fact not sought and our objection is not heeded.
Such arrogance, and this ad drips with it.
Fancy the ad’s makers thinking we’d swallow falsehoods that wouldn’t fool a schoolgirl.
So how is it that such a deceitful and unscientific ad can not only be shown on television, but is endorsed by politicians demanding we “accept the science”.
All that the rest of us can conclude is that if alarmists responsible for the ad must tell such lies, then the truth can’t be so scary.
And that, at least, is true.
(Source: Malcolm Roberts)
10
Rereke Whakaara @ 82
WUWT has started a Climate FAIL File and would welcome fully documented, authenticated instances. Check WUWT for requirements.
Cheers
10
Jo,
I have a real hard time understanding the explanation of gravity in physics. This then has generated a vast amount of theories on black holes related to the density of an object.
Not a single mechanical mechanism just that objects of a greater density has a greater mass which then has a greater magnetic attraction…hmmm.
When doing experiments in rotation, speed is the generating factor to centrifugal force. Now looking at all the other planets and our sun, they are within one day of being in sequence with the outer core of the suns rotation except 3 planets. No matter the density or size…hmmm. Inertia is the factor that physics has given to all planets but if the suns magnetic field only slightly pulls our rotation into the suns sequence, we do not have inertia but a pulling effect generating a bug on the windshield effect on planets for gravity.
A slightly different perspective to the theory in gravity.
10
KeithH: #93
Thanks Keith.
I used to visit WUWT quite often, but was seriously out of my league, with the grown-ups, so the frequency of visits dropped, and eventually I stopped. I will check out the file, though.
I am still keen on the idea of a group authoring effort using the internet as a tool, and this blog as a central point, but will shut up if nobody else is interested.
10
Joe Lalonde: #94.
I attended a lecture on gravity when I was at university, and it was seriously serious stuff. Most of us were finding it tough going.
One of the other students, who just happened to be a blond female, wasn’t as dumb as the rest of us, asked the lecturer if there was a simpler explanation.
The lecturer – a physics professor – looked over the top of his glasses and said, “If you want the potted version, here it is … Earth sucks, the Sun sucks, the whole damn Universe sucks, and that includes everyone in this room, including me. The only thing that stops everything being sucked into something so small that it turns inside out, is the big bang.”
I guess that sums it up quite nicely.
10
Ken # 81
Thanks for that link to those terrifying statements. It really does demonstrate just how warped these people are. These people shouldn’t be in positions of influence, they should be in therapy!
What is it about humanity and their desire to exterminate their own kind on a mass scale? In the West, the last group of lunatics to actually get away with it, for a while at least, was the Nationalist SOCIALIST Party of Germany.
I agree with MemoryVault in previous comments. I’ve always said the Eco-fascists want a bit of mass extermination, but don’t want to get their own hands dirty, a la Hitler. For them, a nice period of mass starvation (not themselves of course) would do the trick. With tanking economies and access to cheap energy denied plus a cooling planet (= low crop yeilds), looks like they may just get their wish.
10
These facts say it all… As of June 2, 2011 the Say Yes site “http://www.sayyesaustralia.org.au” has 667 recommends, 243 tweets and 13 comments !?!… (I added one but they won’t publish it). This is the Stalingrad of the Carbon Tax campaign. They are surrounded and if we keep pressing they will be annihilated. This is the best they can do with all the tax payer funding they have. Kyoto is dead! Now is the time for recriminations against the anti-science leftists who are trying to ruin our country.
10
Rereke Whakaaro #96
This sucking does not explain why somethings are heavier than others when magnetics are not the factor.
Density is a direct link to the speed of rotation. The faster the rotation, the more centrifugal force is created to work outwards. Enclosed in an atmosphere generates pressure and in the case of the planets crust compressed gases are still being released as the planet slows. Compression in rotation can be recreated using a spring, weight and a spoked wheel to show how speed is a factor to this.
Generations of theories were heaped onto one basic one of density without a mechanical component.
10
Here is the email address for these Traitors fromoting the Lies and Proaganda on this Ridiculous website “http://www.sayyesaustralia.org.au”:-
[email protected]
Send them and email and tell them what you think of them and their LIES !
I have added their address to my email Hit List file…….
10
“Proaganda” was meant to be Propaganda……
10
Morning all. No-one captures the contempt that some “celebrities” seem to have for us mortals like Barry Humphries (aka Dame Edna). Here’s how I imagine he/she would address the climate issue…
If the ABC Was Relevant, Part 30
(What Dame Edna didn’t say.)
Hello you gorgeous little people! I find that one of the most satisfying rewards with being an internationally acclaimed celebrity and megastar is the opportunity to rub shoulders with one’s peers on the world stage – and I’m thrilled to tell you about one of those occasions that happened to me this very week! Call me old fashioned, but I’ve always been a bit of a radical, left wing greenie activist, and so it was no surprise when the nice people from Greenpeace rang up and asked me to be the guest speaker at their annual $20,000-a-plate fundraiser in Hollywood! As we all know, people don’t pay this sort of moolah simply for a meal – they pay for the speaker – and this year that speaker was me, so they got exceptional value!
Of course, the evening was a tremendous sell-out success. The glitterati were there – all fresh out of rehab and colonically irrigated – and all on the edge of their collective seats to gather the pearls of wisdom as they fell from my lips. I spoke about sustainability, a subject which I believe in passionately. I believe we need to live simple, frugal lives, existing in harmony with the world and treading lightly on Dame Nature’s bunions. Throughout my short, simple but moving speech (a mere 4 hours), no-one said a single word, but I could tell from the gobbling of the lobster and the slurping of the champers that my message was being received in no uncertain terms!
Of course, the trouble is that I was preaching to the converted, Possums. We all know that celebrities are the most eco-friendly and green-loving people on the face of this wonderful planet. Just ask them! Ambassadors-at-large for the environment, each and every one. Always jetting in and out of exotic locations and making helpful suggestions so you little people can cut back and make sacrifices to save the environment – aren’t we wonderful! And I don’t mind telling you that we celebrities know a thing or two about sustainability – it’s something we do all the time! Not wishing to blow my own trumpet Possums, but I personally sustain 6 beachside mansions, a sprinkling of penthouse apartments and a modest little private airline. That’s a lot of sustaining to do! And, at the same time, generating squillions of little green jobs for gardeners, tradespersons and other peasants like you.
Following my triumphant speech, and after the applause had faded to a distant echo, imagine my surprise to discover that lovely man, Senator Bob Brown, was amongst the milling throng of admirers! “Your presentation was brilliant, Dame Edna, may I have a transcript or your personal notes? We’d like to use it as the new Greens sustainability policy – it makes our old one look like so much old rubbish.” I graciously acquiesced on both counts, but told him that my entire speech was totally off the cuff, each and every word of it borne into perfection as it fell from my luscious ruby lips. However, the recordings of the event will no doubt be preserved for posterity and he and his lovely little hippy friends can copy from that – assuming they could write.
Time flew by and soon it was time for us to leave, so Bob and I sped off into the night in my chauffeur-driven Humvee Sports. The milling throngs sprung aside at the last moment, except for a few of the weak and the frail – but I’m afraid that’s just natural selection at work. I’m sorry, but it is.
Whilst we upgraded our species to the tune of a few geriatric cripples, Senator Bob explained his plans for the Australian economy. The clever man has invented a Carbon Tax, which is his wonderful new gift to the nation! Whereas most taxes just take and take and take, a Carbon Tax just gives and gives and gives, and Senator Bob says we must take action immediately with a humungous carbon tax if we wish to maximise our international competitive advantage! Senator Bob has found a way to tax the nation all the way to prosperity, but before I explain the Carbon Tax in small, easily absorbed factoids, I will share some of my extensive knowledge of climate science for all of you technological non-entities.
You won’t be surprised to know that, in my travels, I have been personally briefed by ex-President Al Gore and his white-coated darlings at the UN laboratories. So here it is – the good oil and straight from Dame Edna herself!
Carbon is yucky. I’m sorry, but it is. Carbon emissions are like what happens when my hapless bridesmaid Madge Allsop attempts to cook something – and I can tell you from personal experience that the results are catastrophic, and could be easily responsible for all the famine, disease, droughts, floods, fires and other nasty jobbies in the world. In summary – as my dear friend Professor Michael Mann once said to me – “Dame Edna, the science is settled.” And if that’s good enough for me, then it’s definitely good enough for you.
But if there is a silver lining to this cloud of cremated cookery, it is in the economics of the Carbon Tax. Now, although I’m a social radical, I’m also a bit of an old-fashioned economic conservative, as my dear friend Kevin once said. Especially when it comes to things like taxation. [As we all know, I am a very generous woman, always giving and giving and giving, so it’s not right that I should be expected to pay taxes as well! Fortunately, since my personal accountant David R. Buckkstein incorporated my affairs in the Bahamas, this is largely the case.]
But a Carbon Tax just gives and gives and gives – it’s like the magic pudding, Possums! Here’s how Senator Bob explained it to me:
Firstly, nobody has to pay anything, except for a few big polluters – the so-called “energy intensive” industries, and they wouldn’t vote Green in a purple fit anyway! All the money that’s collected goes into a thing called a slush fund and will be carefully monitored and controlled in a manner which is yet to be decided. (Any brown paper bags that are used will be recycled in an environmentally sustainable manner.)
Having said that, we must protect Australian jobs, especially those in the “energy intensive” industries. This is to prevent those jobs leaving Australian shores and going to places that have not yet had the wisdom to seize this golden green opportunity. (And there seem to be a terribly large number of them!) So a good portion of the slush fund goes towards providing assistance and incentives to the “energy intensive” industries to enable them to transition to more environmentally acceptable energy sources. (And no cheating – that’s naughty!)
The next 50 – 100% of the slush fund goes straight to the little battlers – those gorgeous fun-loving, beer-drinking, dole-bludging darlings who are the backbone of the socialist vote in this country. If a Carbon Tax were to cause the costs of energy, food and transport to increase (Dame Nature forbid!) then these persons would be unduly disadvantaged because of their existing commitments to nicotine, alcohol and drugs. So the very generous Senator Bob has made a gracious allowance for their little comforts – they get the lot.
And a further 10% goes overseas – to Africa and similar countries at the lower socio-economic end of the spectrum. Our vision is a solar panel on every thatch hut roof, thus empowering non-reflective native resident persons with the right to starve to death in a sustainable manner. At this point, Senator Bob pointed out that while lack of food is a significant cause of starvation, there is absolutely no connection between the recent surge in food prices and the growth of the bio-fuels industry! So what if 25% of the American corn crop is used for making bio fuels – this has nothing to do with a host of adorable fuzzy-wuzzy waifs turning up their toes in Africa! “It is merely a coincidence,” he thundered, “and coincidence does not equate to causation!” More likely, he noted, was that food shortages were due to a sharp but undetectable burst of climate change in the last 3-4 years, and therefore all the more reason to transform that boring grain foodstuff into high-octane fodder for our SUV’s.
So, thanks to Senator Bob’s Carbon Tax, everybody is happy and everybody wins – and we save the planet! But it is really important that we get on with this new tax, lickety split, if our nation is to remain at the forefront of environmental and economic development! Your help will be called upon but rest assured that your own personal sacrifice will be insignificant – perhaps only a decline in your living standards or maybe an attenuation of your life expectancy.
But don’t worry. No-one will notice – at least no-one important…
10
Email sent today to Say YEs.
Hello,
I would like to see efforts put to a true YES: YES to an election on this matter.
The carbon tax is a massive economic and social reform, and the election was fought on a promise to not do precisely what is now being done.
An election would bring Australians together and let everyone have their say – along with Cate, Michael and other ordinary Australians who feature in the promotional video.
Thank you.
10
Damian @ 100
Went to the “Say Yes” website http://www.sayyesaustralia.org.au/2011/05/30/community-leaders-join-call-for-carbon-price/#comment-109 and in the article community leaders join call for carbon price there were 24 comments – with 5 Yes Votes, 14 No Votes, and 6 Admin comments. Not good for the Say Yes campaign.
I added some comments to the website earlier – not published – in fact the whole website has been down for 2 hours plus.
I highlighted one comment by Alena Composta as per below informing them that the only people to believe in her existance was the ABC and maybe they should check on her existance and the validity of her Yes vote.
Here’s her comment:
I have a screen clip of this.
10
Thet say justice is blind.
While those overseas are seeing the error of their ways, Julia and Co must be living in a state of denial.
From The Hockey Schtick.
While Gillard, Combet, Brown and Milne are all self handicaped by living in denial, the media treat the populous like mushrooms.
10
Nailed it Speedy!( again )
10
Thanks Pattoh. I’m afraid there’s a ring of truth in this…
10
Dave @104 – the most frequent comment there now is
Comment removed.
We have removed a comment from this thread as it was either irrelevant, spam or abuse
Removed comments well outnumber pro-tax comments. You’d think the believers would get in there for the good of the cause.
10
“I have a real hard time understanding the explanation of gravity in physics. This then has generated a vast amount of theories on black holes related to the density of an object.”
There is no mainstream explanation of gravity. Newton didn’t even try one on. He just gave us the formulas, but he had no explanation. Whereas Einsteins explanation of gravity was merely ridiculous and to be dismissed out of hand.
Clearly gravity is a force, and not a curvature of anything. Where there is no space to curve, the force is still present. So thats the end of that nonsense, even before you point out that objects have shapes, but space does not, ruling out the possibility that space can be curved, compressed, stretched, broken, created, or otherwise tampered with.
Since we cannot have a force acting at a distance, it is implied that all “stuff” that is in the gravitational matrix is connected. Each item with mass is connected to every other, directly or indirectly. Matter-with-mass is “stuff” that is connected. But since its pretty odd to have all this stuff connected we would assume that there is a lot of unconnected stuff that we cannot classify as “matter.”
Here I don’t talk of “dark matter” which is make-believe and a disgraceful fudge factor. But there must be a vast volume of “stuff” that barely interacts with the connected matter. And that is there to be converted to matter by some process.
10
I have looked at eco-friendly alternatives, so far I have installed solar panels on my home but while looking for a electric car I find the cost doesnt justify it for me. While I am passionate about making green choices whenever possible it is up to people like you and I to spread awareness and let the companies know there is a demand. Your website looks popular and I think you can help influence society with your insight and eco tips. by the way I found your site by searching Let’s say “Yes” to real science « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax and you were the first result. So I think your website is a good platform to discuss ideas that are thought provoking and influence your readers to go green. – Good luck with your site, you deserve it! Please continue to talk about more eco-tips, every idea helps us get closer day by day!
REPLY: Ha ha. This must be spam but it’s so well crafted I thought I’d let it stick (minus the active link). Lots of blogs would be fooled by this. But obviously he’s not a sceptic. His site; solarworksonline.mobi. Just another renewable energy mob paying people to autogenerate spam comments.
10
It’s ironic that someone would mention Animal Farm with regards to this debate. Perhaps they didn’t understand the sort of things George Orwell was concerned with, or they were holding up a purposeful straw-man, but whatever the reason, to draw similarities between events in Animal Farm and those in Australian politics is melodrama and self-victimisation at its ugliest. Our society is not a repressed police state, nor are we desperately poor, oppressed, unequally treated, or censured. The fact we may protest to our hearts’ content or say things with no responsibility is a big symptom of a free and democratic society.
The novel also highlights a number of ‘traits’ that are considered adversaries to the formation of an Utopian society. Some of these are exhibited in abundance by climate change deniers, carbon tax opponents and even extremists on the supporting side (for those who forgot or haven’t read the book, some of these were: greed, ignorance, short-sightedness).
It is greed that drives mining industries and corporations to pay vast amounts of money to stop a tax that would require them to pay a cost for pollution (they would of course support Direct Action, which pays big polluters, compensating them because they pollute and need to change, creating no incentive to invest in non-polluting companies). It is ignorance that drives the controversy behind climate science (models that look at the effect of man-made climate change include core sampling and other methods, it is by knowing the past trend that we can see how much of an impact our current activity has). And it is short-sightedness that drives the cry for no Carbon Tax.
A price on Carbon is necessary, and it is coming. The later we join that bandwagon, the more expensive it will be (infrastructure built around clean energy can only thrive in a market where pollution is priced). It is extremely short-sighted to argue for no Carbon Tax now just so it can be applied to workers in the future. And on the subject of pollution. Ozone is not automatically considered a pollutant, and neither is CO2 in their natural proportions. What makes pricing CO2 more pertinent however, is that it is present in every exchange we make from fossil fuel to energy. When taxing the use of dirty energy, it is most effective to tax the single most consistent (and one of the biggest environmental contributors) substance.
10
@ Orwellian Child (#111).
You didn’t identify the “Animal Farm” comment but it could easily have been mine, per link.
Whatever the case, firstly, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, as we all are.
Secondly, my thinking on the policy behind the carbon tax is that Julia and Bob,and their supporters, are mixed up with the World Government “movement”. If that isn’t ‘Orwellian’, I certainly had better re-read the book. If not ‘Animal Farm’ where the supposed “people took over from the ‘dictator’ and a new and worse dictatorship was created, then certainly “The Brave New World’ where there was a World Government based on controlling everybody. Full control and 100% propaganda. As you say, Australia is not there yet, but I say this is where we are heading.
Your understanding of the need for, and the supposed benefits of the carbon tax, is not supported by legitimate science. You admit CO2 is only a partial polluter, but its proposed use as the basis for pollution control produces a completely biassed and totally unjust social and economic restructuring.
What are your thoughts on our government’s taxing of CO2 emissions and yet they promote the future development of the coal-gas industry – increased fossil fuel burning?
10
@ #109. Graeme. I am very glad I have read your comment. Never have I accepted this curvature of space theory. It might be demonstrated in two dimensions but not in three. Distortion of the gravitational field by a mass makes sense but is not the theory of a gravitational force creating orbital paths for planets etc. adequate?
10