Climate Change

[evand]

voted NO to what? stopping global warming?

well, of course it wont. It was never designed to STOP anything.

So, its an accurate poll then.

Do your own poll if you don't like this one. Or is it that you don't like the fact that nearly 95% have voted NO.

 

[shiftyphil]

It is designed to distribute wealth. It does that well.

But is it redistributing downwards because the communists are behind it, or upwards because Goldman Sachs is behind it?

You try it with water first and see how polluting that is.

I'll go 20% water vs 20% CO2.

 

[josko]

Ok! I have to say this:

To be fair, Gillard has never said, not once...that this tax will stop Global Warming. Their (Greenies and Labor's) original objective was to make a cut of 5% in Australian CO2 emissions by the year 2020.

This has always been the theme.

When announcing the tax her objective became this:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says her government's carbon price will reduce Australia's carbon footprint by 160 million tonnes by 2020.....
By 2020 the tax will have removed the emission equivalent of 45 million cars.

...

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=636042&vId=

I have to admit, the question isn't correct.....but I knew what Ned was getting at and don't believe it will change Global Warming...if indeed there is such a thing.

Personally, from what I have read, I believe the Earth's Climate acts in cycles and until the next Ice Age where our children's children's children's childrens...etc will not know what hits them as the earth's pole moves.....I will plan to live my life as clean as I can, as cheaply as I can without freezing my family to death and making stupid decisions to "save the world".


Regards JO

 

[bluestorm]

Are you for real? Stop global warming? Stop pollution? How ill it do that? How can anything stop it? Please answer that?

It will reduce pollution and stop the countries biggest polluters freely polluting with no limits.

Evand, do you actually realise that CO2 is not pollution?? You breath out CO2 daily. Most of life on earth would not exist without C02. You trees you green hippies love to hug would not exist without CO2.

We all agree here to tackle "pollution", trailings into water sources, chemicals into the environment, etc, but CO2 is not pollution. When the environmental zealots keep stating CO2 is pollution you know that they have no clue what they are on about.

Anyway, you've proved how silly you are on this forum.

 

[shiftyphil]

Evand, do you actually realise that CO2 is not pollution?? You breath out CO2 daily./quote]

It's a greenhouse gas. If the atmospheric concentration is increased, the Earth's overall temperature is increased. That is why it is a pollutant.

Most of life on earth would not exist without C02. You trees you green hippies love to hug would not exist without CO2.

No one wants to eliminate CO2, just maintain it at (near) current levels.

 

[bluestorm]

It's a greenhouse gas. If the atmospheric concentration is increased, the Earth's overall temperature is increased. That is why it is a pollutant.

No one wants to eliminate CO2, just maintain it at (near) current levels.

Well actually, CO2 levels are at below historic normals. Only 2 period earth history have had CO2 levels this low as we currently have.
The information is everywhere. Anyway, I'll let you fools scare yourselves to death about C02. BOO

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

BOO.

 

[NedKelly]

It's a greenhouse gas. If the atmospheric concentration is increased, the Earth's overall temperature is increased. That is why it is a pollutant.

That's not proved. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature.

 

[bluestorm]

That's not proved. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature.

No point is arguing with them anymore. CO2 lags temperature rises, CO2 is geologically as historic lows, etc. All the facts don't matter to the global warming religion. It's like trying to convince someone there is no god. They'll dismiss the facts.

Just try and work out how to make money off the fools. Eg, I made some nice money day trading Green companies before the Carbon Tax announcement, and then trading the "polluters" after the announcement when they bounced back after sharp falls.

 

[shiftyphil]

That's not proved. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature.

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 around for a short time, and we evolved (or were created) to live in a climate like the present day.

 

[NedKelly]

I'll go 20% water vs 20% CO2.

Well if it was in the atmosphere you would be stuffed. Water vapour contirbutes 70% of the total greenhouse gas effect. Why doesn't Gillard talk about water pollution when we boil a kettle or have a shower. It's all a load of b*ll*cks.

 

[shiftyphil]

Why doesn't Gillard talk about water pollution when we boil a kettle or have a shower. It's all a load of b*ll*cks.

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

 

[josko]

Pollutants:

Can't find Carbon Dioxide (CO2) on this site:

The United States Air Toxics Website:
http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/187polls.html

Nor here:

The Australian Governments Dept of Sustainability, Environment, Water population Communities.
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/sok/chapter5.html

In fact there is a long list of Priority Air Toxics, which would include toxics such as Carbon Monoxide, Methyl ethyl ketone, and Chromium...

If these pollutants are on a Priority List ........why are we taxing CO2 again?

Regards JO

 

[bluestorm]

Well if it was in the atmosphere you would be stuffed. Water vapour contirbutes 70% of the total greenhouse gas effect. Why doesn't Gillard talk about water pollution when we boil a kettle or have a shower. It's all a load of b*ll*cks.

Well GreenLabor have worked out a way to tax two of the four elements(Earth and Air) through the mining and carbon dioxide tax. I'm sure they there are plans underway to tax the other two. Water and Fire.

The flooding rains messed up the timeline, but I'm sure when another drought comes about there will be a Water tax implemented.

 

[NedKelly]

Well GreenLabor have worked out a way to tax two of the four elements(Earth and Air) through the mining and carbon dioxide tax. I'm sure they there are plans underway to tax the other two. Water and Fire.

The flooding rains messed up the timeline, but I'm sure when another drought comes about there will be a Water tax implemented.

You are forgetting the Flood Tax. My apologies, it is not a tax it's a levy.

 

[locko24]

You are forgetting the Flood Tax. My apologies, it is not a tax it's a levy.

Ah yes - because Anna forgot to pay her insurance bill! Or something...

 

[pieman]

Mate, that's a dumb question. The carbon tax is not designed to "STOP" global warming.

Its designed to make large polluting companies pay for their pollution. In turn reducing carbon dioxide and helping to reduce man made global warming.

Do you Liberal guys actually think about things at all? Sorry, but i had to ask.

+1 for dumbest questionnaire award - you forgot that option

 

[Token Funder]

+1 for dumbest questionnaire award - you forgot that option

As above.

Both mainstream political parties:

• accept the science
• have a commitment to a reduction of 140M tonnes (5%) of CO2 by 2020

.

Neither expects it by and of itself to stop global warming (just reduce our contribution to it) any more than our decision to ban flourocarbons was single handedly going to "stop" the damage to the ozone layer. The only difference in policy is the question of whether you use a market-based mechanism to do it or not. In a bizarre result and in contradiction of everything they used to stand for, the Liberals propose to go down the "government uses taxpayers money to pick winners" route.

 

[evand]

Absolutely. Dumb dumb dumb.

If you havn't read it yet, here it is;

http://www.smh.com.au/business/socialism-for-some-its-a-path-to-wealth-20110729-1i403.html

In a bizarre result and in contradiction of everything they used to stand for, the Liberals propose to go down the "government uses taxpayers money to pick winners" route.

 

[BayView]

I voted:

"Yes; for sure"........

Because she said it would.

 

[josko]

I voted:

"Yes; for sure"........

Because she said it would.

LOL- Yep.

Regards JO