Search results

To maintain the same percentage there would have to be a massive amount of oxygen added, and it would be besides the point anyway. If you've kept the CO2 concentration level the same but added an extra three feet of atmosphere, you'll be warmer anyway. No animals either since they couldn't...

I've got a small investment in hybrid securities that I'm collecting interest on. 10% yields with controlled risks. Using borrowed money (currently paying 3.9%). Capital gain if/when they are redeemed. Price had moved a bit since I bought in, now back to where they were. Currently...

Is it? The ice is getting thicker (due to increased precipitation), but I haven't seen any evidence it's trending colder. What? That makes no sense at all? How does increased O2 counter increasing CO2?

That's not analogous to the CT supporting position. With global action we can contain global warming to below catastrophic levels. It's more like:

You're still trying to attack a straw man with that question.

Because it doesn't persist in the atmosphere for any real length of time.

In warming periods that were forced by other factors it does. If you're going to argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all, then you're really out there on the fringe - even Monckton doesn't go that far. As for it being at "historic" lows - yeah, that's great; but humans have only been...

But is it redistributing downwards because the communists are behind it, or upwards because Goldman Sachs is behind it? I'll go 20% water vs 20% CO2.

Your inability to see anything other than black and white is very clear.

Yes, it's an amazing revelation that it doesn't do something that noone but it's detractors claimed it would. Go stick your head in a bucket of it and report back.

None of the poll options reflect the actual answer - "Howard's/Rudd's/Gillard ETS provides an incentive to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and thereby reduce our future contribution to climate change." "Stopping global warming" is not a realistic goal in our lifetimes.

You couldn't pay me to go back to them.

Which is exactly the same price they charge for the equivalent DSL service.

He has plenty of power - he controls not just his own vote in the HOR, but (directly) 71 others, plus 34 senate seats. He can choose to use them wisely to amend or even propose legislation. He can continue to pretend he is impotent, but he has substantially more power than Bob Brown.

For $149 I think it's a bargain. Want to go halves in a "reverse vampires are stealing kidneys" one?

"Koozzoo.com produces to order TV news and PR segments from as little as $149." That's not a credible source of information, it's a PR firm.

They may have a point that shortening carbon dioxide to carbon is confusing, but it's hardly a lie. It's also not the full story either - carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas that will be regulated. The rest of the 'lies' are true.

Death, taxes and lying politicians... all inevitable. Having a hysterical fit over it won't change anything.

That's one. I don't you can define 'often' to mean the same thing as 'once.' But here's the matching lie from Honest Tony - http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1761.asp?s=1