Search results

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

These "GreenLeft" people - they're professional economists?

To drive a complete shift from coal to gas on its own, it would need to be $40 - $70 (depending on who you believe).

Could you point to exactly where in the constitution it says anything about that? Or is it...

Because they're clearly not so stupid as to believe that China's rate of coal consumption is purely dependent on our supply.

It was a Liberal policy first.

Yes, it does matter for the total energy balance. I was limiting the discussion to actual losses before. There are certainly proposals to try to alter albedo to offset warming, but they're not cheap and are fraught with their own problems. Have to be very careful not to over-correct. On...

No one here is denying that natural cycles exist, but human induced warming is overpowering that completely. We should be in a cooling trend according to our current place in the Milankovitch cycle.

You need to understand the point of modelling - whether it be economic or climate. You can't predict the exact future of a complex system - there are too many possibilities - but you can compare the relative results of different courses of action.

Still going to Joe Hockey for your calculations I see. Unless you can provide some evidence, I'm going to go with the economists on this one.

There are direct quotes from a representative of the USGS. The same information is available elsewhere if you want it too. Not by itself, no it is not.

Yes. Here's a start: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm As we become less carbon dependant, the price can increase quite dramatically with little economic impact. We have to start down that road first. I'm not sure what you mean there. We don't have a...

Can you name one? There is reflection of shorter wavelength radiation, based on our albedo, but that's more "not absorbing" rather than losing. We can't cool off by convection or conduction, we're not touching anything (when you take the Earth plus atmosphere as a whole).