Climate Change (poll 2)
- Thread starter NedKelly
- Start date
You're still trying to attack a straw man with that question.
What Shifty said from your first poll, re-quoted here for your perusal:
Shiftyphil:
You are indeed chasing the straw...
Shiftyphil:
You are indeed chasing the straw...
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Compared to the rest of the developed and developing world, Australia is little more than a pimple for global warming.
Compared to the rest of the developed and developing world, Australia is little more than a pimple for global warming.
If you compare the USAs export earners, entertainment, financial services, toxic derivatives, computers, software and high-end manufactured goods, to ours, coal, iron ore, coal, natural gas, iron ore, refined nickel aluminium and copper it is easy to see why we emit more per worker than they do. One man driving a dump truck burns massive amounts of fuel. Likewise a two man crew of these 2 km long ore trains.
If you think Oz can close their mines and make better trucks than Caterpillar, better tractors than John Deere, better chips than Intel, better computers than Dell, better cars than Honda, better movies than Hollywood, then one day we might match them on emissions. If you doubt we can actually achieve this goal, live with what we've got.
If you think Oz can close their mines and make better trucks than Caterpillar, better tractors than John Deere, better chips than Intel, better computers than Dell, better cars than Honda, better movies than Hollywood, then one day we might match them on emissions. If you doubt we can actually achieve this goal, live with what we've got.
Why is it dumb. Every one of your posts to date have suggested you would vote option 2&3. The Greens and Labor will have the world, and that Labor has been doing an excellent job, saving Australia from certain economic doom, etc, etc
PS evand: In case you missed it, the poll is taking the **** out of the whole man-made climate change rubbish.
Anyway, I like option 5 Tanya. After all, the NSW voters voted for Kristina Kenelly as well cause she was OK on the eyes.
hahaha i agree but at least it was an attempt and there is now a more accurate outcome so far about 40% for 60% against which is is expected on a forum full of money hungry people. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having a love for money but I believe our main priority is our health and the planet, if they don't work or exist then money is irrelevant. I'm also aware that the carbon tax is not going to change the worlds climate change issues but it's a step in the right direction.
I'm going to walk from Melbourne to Cairns. I know I will never get there but at least if I put my feet on the Hume Highway, it's a step in the right direction.
What's the point?!
I think that's THE most ridiculous justification for a carbon tax.
I'm going to walk from Melbourne to Cairns. I know I will never get there but at least if I put my feet on the Hume Highway, it's a step in the right direction.
What's the point?!
I think that's THE most ridiculous justification for a carbon tax.
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:
And if no one stops to give me a lift?
I'm sure there will be plenty of solar powered Prime movers parked on the side of the road charging up for their next 20km sprint!
LOL good one!
No! Becasue her tax was not aimed at "stopping Global Warming".
I hate being so technical and am the first to point out that I have been picked on my use of words "technically" speaking...but her aim has never been to stop Global Warming....what ever that is!
Regards, JO
... and install a dozen or so nuclear power plants ...
Evand, this tongue in cheek poll was instigated because someone got all antsy on the other thread about that poll being to lenient towards the negative, so this one is leaning towards the positive. Easy. Even a dummy like me "gets it"
I just received my copy of the Australian Government clean energy future propaganda. I got to page 5 before I thought what they were saying cannot be true. Please dont judge as I didn't investigate further, but to me it is either extremely misleading or just plain bull dust.
The section I was most troubled by was this:
"The world is moving to a clean energy future.
Countries are already taking action on climate change. In addition, 89 countries - representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world s economy - have already pledged to take action on climate change."
Now, does that mean the nations not involved, ie Russia, China, USA, Canada and so on make up 20% of global emissions and only a mere 10% of the world economy.
I find this hard to believe.
I don't think we are intended to question anything at all about this marvelous new tax.
It won't be long until the thought police will be recruited to stop people like me questioning our fabulous leader.
The section I was most troubled by was this:
"The world is moving to a clean energy future.
Countries are already taking action on climate change. In addition, 89 countries - representing 80 per cent of global emissions and 90 per cent of the world s economy - have already pledged to take action on climate change."
Now, does that mean the nations not involved, ie Russia, China, USA, Canada and so on make up 20% of global emissions and only a mere 10% of the world economy.
I find this hard to believe.
I don't think we are intended to question anything at all about this marvelous new tax.
It won't be long until the thought police will be recruited to stop people like me questioning our fabulous leader.
If this tax doesn't reduce global temperatures at least we did our bit and can feel "warm and fuzzy"
