found a great site with the truth about CO2

Per captia, really, that is all you have!

Oh no it won't do, you fail, but alas you had a go. Good for you Tiger.

The population of OZ could dry up and blow away tomorrow and bearly a blip would appear in the world polution stakes.

Sorry......any loops with any integrity out there?

 

Yes. Per capita. Humans are responsible for the CO2 emissions that are impacting upon climate. The humans who produce the most emission need to reduce the amount they produce. It is irrelevant what colour passport they may carry.

 

A local paper of mine had a letter last week that mentioned and recommended the galileo movement website. I was rather concerned, but thankfully this week a letter was included that exposed the specious lies rampant on the website. The truth prevails

 

Per Capita

And...woss is doss in bold?? I do hope that is not a poorly played race card.

PMSL

Fail..

 

You seem to think that the arbitrary borders human beings sometimes draw up as national boundaries is relevant. They are not.

The dirtiest people who produce the most pollution must reduce their emissions. Most of these people live in Australia, USA, Western Europe and other developed nations.


You are the one playing the race card:

Why are you singling out people who on average emit only one quarter of the emissions that you do?

 

But world wide we're not, can't. Too many people over these imaginary borders that can't slow progress that much.

The science is in, emissions are going up.

Please do try harder to keep up.

 

China is leading the world in investment in renewable energy. Don't you think we should at least try to keep up with them?

Or are you happy that Australia's future will be only as a quarry for the more advanced nations?

 

Well, basically it has been the twonks in the denialist camps who cannot will not and are actually incapable of understanding the science who are are stopping this

 

Deflection.

The science is in, your being dishonest.

 

Hey?

More blather.

The science is in, we have already failed our children. Do try and see the big picture.

 

Yes, the science is in, emissions are going up and China, India and the USA are leading the charge in increasing emissions.

Dullard's government could significantly reduce Australia's tiny contribution with some direct action but no, they are not interested in reducing emissions, only gathering more tax.
None of you blind carbon tax supporters have addressed my previous points of why has Dullard increased taxes and scraped any government assistance on the two most readily available clean renewable fuels, ethanol and bio-diesel. Why are they not converting the dirty coal fired power stations to relatively very clean LNG of which Australia has huge reserves. Other countries are doing it, but no, Dullard and Labor just want more tax.

 

What do you mean by this incessant mantra of 'the science is in'? Do you think we unequivocally know what is going to happen? What are you so afraid of? Could you please link to a study or whatever it is you base your fears on?

 

What?

Listen to the PM...the science is is, man made global climate change warming is real and we are causing it. Are you so disenfranchised with the rest of the world?

The science is in, Gore and Flannery (among others) point us to the catastrophic consequences of not reducing emissions.

World wide emissions are going up, up, up.

We have already failed our children.

I'm, agreeing with you all, the science is in man, it's in

 

So your pessimistic view and fear is based on what you have heard from the PM, Flannery and Gore? I highly recommend getting information from a wider range of sources. Also, try not to get completely wrapped up in the media. Science is never set in stone.

 

So why are we implementing a tax to cut a pittiful amount of emissions, that will do no good? Why Lepper?

It's the view many respected scientists have, peer reviewed papers, IPCC etc etc, i'm just going with the flow. PM, Gore etc just a small example of those saying AGW is real. The science is in, sorry you have missed out on the last 10 years of debate about this, AGW is real.

Where have you been? A colony on an island?

 

Heh, another loaded question . You do know what a loaded question is, yes? Your presupposition that it 'will do no good' is subjective and yet to be substantiated on your behalf.

I believe we are implementing this tax because of the state of parliament at the last election. I agree it should be aiming to cut more emissions, but I do not think it is a bad thing, rather the first step down a very long path. I would also argue that encouraging cleaner use of energy is a positive thing for Australia.

A carbon tax will not necessarily cut emissions either, but the revenue has potential to be put to good use. Hopefully when the ETS is introduced we can avoid the corruption that has plagued the EU.

Ah, very good. Your omission of proper authorities lead me to believe your information was drawn purely from the media ....I agree AGW is real. What I am skeptical on is the extent of our impact. This seems to be a hotly debated issue and I'm in no position to commit to any projection with any certainty. Hence why I prefer to be aware, not alarmed.

And please try to refrain from snide remarks and ad hominem. It does nothing for your argument or the discussion

 

Subjective? If we cut a pittance, that everyone agrees will be swalled up by increases, if you stuggle to see that it aint my problem. It's a fact.

Never said being better wasn't a good idea.

How can we not be alarmed by the "greatest moral dilemma of our generation"? Isn't the head of the goverments climate change committee one of the ones warning us of the fate that awaits? BIG GREEN Tim!! He's a scarey dood.

Revenue....i see, we will need it to overcome the disaster that is surely coming. What do we do when water starts lapping at our cities. Surely we must move our cities now.

The science is in.

 

Yes, it is subjective. You assert that it will 'do no good'. That is your own take on the matter and I provided valid points as to potential good to come from the tax. If you want to ignore those points and adopt a pessimistic attitude then that isn't my problem. You asked a loaded question so I never really expected you to listen. It's a fact.

Sounds like you aren't capable of a rational approach to this (or more likely you are trolling). Not my problem either.

Sounds to me like you are deflecting valid points in favour of your personal pessimism.

A fundamental part of science is it is never absolutely 'in'.

 

I assert that if AGW is real, shaving 5% of our emissions by 2020 (or when ever it is) will do no good. Do you disagree?

Why am I trolling? Is the PM trolling? Was Rudd trolling? Never thought I would cop so much by just trying to agree. When people talk of decreasing rains, rising seas etc etc are they just trolling?

Deflecting? What? Again I’m just agreeing that the science is in and AGW is real.

If the PM says the science is in, then I’m with her! She wouldn’t lie….surely!

 

Yes, I disagree. It will do some good. You also ignore all other benefits that might come from the tax so it isn't a very well put question.

So you weren't being sarcastic? In that case you seem to suffer the symptoms of double-think. Denouncing Flannery one moment and praising him the next. Try and have some consistency in your posting if you don't want to come across as a troll.

Yes, you deflected the point I made about the potential benefits of tax revenue by turning the subject toward a pessimistic, worst-case scenario. The tax won't be in place until next year so I hardly see how suggesting we 'move our cities now' is relevant. This isn't what the revenue is meant for anyway.

Your posts are riddled with sarcasm. Would I be wrong to say you are trying to build a strawman of 'warmist' beliefs?

 

Yes Comrade. I agree. Glad to see you have come over to our side.

Strong government intervention is the only answer. Not this market-driven nonsense the Labor party proposes

 

And we all agree with you. The targets need to be much higher. The tax should be higher. And the tax should be maintained - there should be no ETS.

 

OK, you are talking about the tax doing good. I’m talking about a 5% cut that will be ecplipsed by world wide increases.

Troll, troll, blaa, blaa. The PM and all these respected scientists tell us that AWG is happening. Man is causing it. If world wide emissions are going up then surely things will get much worse before they get better, no?

I think you confuse worst-case with what is actually happening. Do you think emissions world wide will decrease any time soon? Move cities? But won’t the seas rise if emissions are to rise and the effects of AWG increase (as surely they must)?

Strawman? I didn’t say the science is in, I didn’t say that AGW is real, I didn’t say what the catostrophic effects will be. This is what we are told by the very people that support the theory.

All I’m saying is, if they are right, and emissions are increasing, then our job is to survive the challenges ahead, not make token cuts to emmissions.

 

don't know coming over to your side... but I have always been a supporter of renewable energy sources and reducing pollution of all sorts. It just sh*ts me that governments don't seem to be interested. Dullards carbon tax certainly won't do a thing for either.
John Howard was starting to talk about ramping up our ethanol output but then a bunch of dimwits went and voted Labor and that was the end of that.

 

Ok, sure, though your original question to me included the tax. Try to be realistic and understand the world cannot go through such a dramatic change overnight. I agree much more needs to be done to have a real impact.

Like I said, try to keep some consistency in your posting if you don't want to get labelled a troll....And yes, it seems likely things will get worse before they get better.

What is happening is the sea levels are rising. There are various estimations at how fast and how much they will rise in the next 90 years. The most dramatic of these is the worst-case. I don't think calling for people to 'move cities now' is a very helpful or realistic suggestion given the contention surrounding this topic....All this is a bit irrelevant anyway. The point I was making was about potential benefits to come from the tax revenue.

You have said/implied all these things. Why the sudden change of tune? Please try to be consistent. Otherwise this is a waste of time.

I agree. More should be done. You should try convincing the rest of Australia