Copenhagen Treaty

[Guest]

So now you are happy with Labor introducing the carbon tax that will cost on average $1100 per year?

The GST is pretty much seamless and if it were so bad, Labor would have rolled it back.

Not only that the GST replaced a raft of wholesale taxes that 99.9% of people didn't even know existed and were increased by the Labor government buried in the budget papers and unreported. The Ets is a massive economy destroying tax based of lies as exposed by leaked emails and documents of the worlds so called leading climatologists.

[Guest]

New Yahoo 7 poll

How would you vote at the next Federal Election?

Labor 368 30%
Liberal (if it supports a carbon Tax) 89 7%
Liberal (if does not support a carbon Tax) 502 41%
Nationals 63 5%
Greens 82 7%
Independent 61 5%
Other 59 5%


http://post.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/qui...?poll_id=50265

[Guest]

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Richard Lindzen world renowned climatoligist from MIT

More proof for chook if he needs it

[stephenj]

so the drongos want to give power to a coalition of the greens and family first? that should make for a dynamic country
?

[Guest]

http://www.madisonmag.com.au/life/he...ews-261109.htm


The UN dictators of the world

health + fitness news: 26.11.09
Send to friendPrint Bookmark this page POSTED 26.11.2009 @ 13:29 (14) Comments
The key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions is birth control according to a UN commissioned report that suggests a reduced population could be more effective in easing the effects of emissions on the environment than the construction of wind turbines or nuclear power stations.

The UN Population Fund report indicates that by taking measure to avoid the birth of one billion new babies by 2050, the effects would be equivalent to the construction of two million one-megawatt wind turbines.

"No human is genuinely carbon neutral," the report states. "Therefore, everyone is part of the problem so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

The report has earned the ire of some social commentators, with an article in the Wall Street Journal dismissing the claims as a "somewhat totalitarian formulation" and saying that its rationale ignores the possibility that one of those "prevented" lives might have been the way to cure cancer or HIV.

"One could equally make the argument that car makers should dispense with seat-belts—the better to rid the world of drivers of carbon-emitting automobiles—or that children should be encouraged to smoke from a young age, the better to shorten the years in which they too might emit untold quantities of greenhouse gas," the Wall Street Journal article states.

"Smoke, Die and Save the Planet—now there's a credo for the folks in the anti-population lobby."

[Guest]

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514

Gore caught with his pants down?

[Guest]

Tide starting to turn as Climategate is exposed

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1225804931828

Malcolm Turnbull stance cops a poll axing GLENN MILNE Political Editor From: The Sunday Telegraph November 29, 2009 12:00AM Increase Text
Hanging on ... Malcolm Turnbull yesterday with his wife Lucy and dog Imelda. Pic: Jane Dempster Source: The Sunday Telegraph
MALCOLM Turnbull's hopes of fighting off a Liberal rebellion over climate change to hold on to the Opposition leadership have been shattered by a poll showing a whopping 60 per cent of Australians are against Kevin Rudd rushing the Emissions Trading Scheme through parliament.
Despite Mr Turnbull insisting the ETS must be passed now - ahead of the UN's Copenhagen summit - the poll overwhelmingly backs his opponents - with 81 per cent of Coalition supporters wanting the vote delayed.

Incredibly, nine out of 10 Coalition supporters - and three out of four Labor voters - say they don't understand the ETS and want the Government to explain it better.

The Galaxy poll, conducted exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph on Friday night, shows a huge 80 per cent of voters do not believe the Government has provided sufficient details about an ETS with only 26 per cent now supporting the Turnbull-Rudd push for the Senate to pass it into law immediately.

Fewer than one in five Australians believe the Government has provided sufficient information about the ETS.

Even 73 per cent of Labor voters are in the dark over the ETS.

Mr Turnbull will face a leadership challenge on Tuesday from Tony Abbott. But frantic efforts will be made by Liberal MPs over the next 48 hours to convince their preferred candidate, Joe Hockey, to stand. Mr Hockey, who is torn between his commitment to his young family and the need to take on the top job, will be buoyed by the Galaxy poll which shows he is neck- and-neck in voter support with Mr Turnbull, with both on 29 per cent. Mr Abbott is not far behind on 22 per cent.

Among Coalition supporters though, Mr Hockey is the clear favourite preferred by 39 per cent, with Mr Turnbull on 25 per cent running third behind Mr Abbott on 26 per cent.

Mr Hockey has previously said he will not challenge Mr Turnbull out of loyalty, friendship and the fact both belong to the party's moderate wing.

A confident Mr Turnbull yesterday re-affirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he'd have to be blasted out of the leadership.

Asked if he would be a candidate, Mr Turnbull replied: "Absolutely. I've said it a thousand times. I'll stand."

As well as trying to convince Mr Hockey that if Mr Turnbull lost a spill motion and re-nominated Mr Hockey would not technically be challenging, his supporters are also try- ing to strike a deal with the Right through Senate leader Nick Minchin.

This would involve the right-wing climate change sceptics in the party refraining from publicly crowing they had won the day if Mr Hockey - previously a supporter of the ETS legislation being passed - were to stand and win.

Senior frontbencher Christopher Pyne, a supporter of Mr Turnbull, is not deserting his leader.

But, critically, MPs say his closeness to Mr Hockey and Mr Turnbull now makes him a key factor in any smooth transition between the two.

If a deal can be done Mr Hockey will send the ETS Bill off to a Senate inquiry and then use the findings of that inquiry in the new year to position himself as supporting an ETS but not the one being proposed by Mr Rudd.



But Mr Abbott, in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, says the view of him as a narrow conservative is wrong, citing his plan for paid maternity leave as an example of his changed views, describing himself as a "commonsense pragmatist".

He also pledged not to let his Catholic beliefs influence his role as leader of the Opposition.

"The internal party criticism is that I'm ill-disciplined and too inclined to fly solo," Mr Abbott said.

"I think as a frontbencher you have to float a few ideas, but, obviously as a leader, there's a sense in which you don't have the luxury of a private opinion. I would be careful as leader to be collegial and consultative."

Independent assessments suggest Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott each would have 30 solid votes. The remaining 25 MPs are understood to be leaning Mr Abbott's way, believing that if Mr Turnbull is re-elected, the undermining will simply continue.

Some of Mr Turnbull's supporters judge he has, at best, 20 solid votes, with 39 "on a very good day" - well short of the 43 needed for victory. Some put Mr Abbott decisively ahead "in the high 30s".

[Guest]

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

Richard Lindzen world renowned climatoligist from MIT

More proof for chook if he needs it

Proof of what exactly?

Chook.

[Guest]

wow have been reading about this all morning in a bid to become more informed. so read through the 20 pages here to see what my fellow roosters thought. i like john L am still totally undecided. imo it seems as though both sides are happy to provide statements of "fact" on the back of "scientific" evidence but not willing to acknowledge the credibility of the "fact" from the oppositions "scientists." A few thoughts cross my mind as a fence sitter:

1. What time period do people believe we have? If we don't implement the ETS now, and in 10 years we realise that indeed we are killing the environment, is it too late?

2. What effect will it have on the poor in these developing countries? If the big boys are going to be handing out money to the impovished to develop sustainably, how will they dictate the spread of these funds? Will the rich there just get richer?

3. Who do both parties believe to be a reputable source of fact?

4. What will this mean for nuclear power? Surely as a major source of uranium, Australia wouldn't want to wipe this from the drawing board?

5. How long will the ETS continue-that is, when will it be determined to be a success? What measure will be used? Change in climate?

I'm sure I will have more questions as I process it all.

[melon....]

Proof of what exactly?

Chook.

Mate, your being conned.

[Guest]

wow have been reading about this all morning in a bid to become more informed. so read through the 20 pages here to see what my fellow roosters thought. i like john L am still totally undecided. imo it seems as though both sides are happy to provide statements of "fact" on the back of "scientific" evidence but not willing to acknowledge the credibility of the "fact" from the oppositions "scientists." A few thoughts cross my mind as a fence sitter:

1. What time period do people believe we have? If we don't implement the ETS now, and in 10 years we realise that indeed we are killing the environment, is it too late?

2. What effect will it have on the poor in these developing countries? If the big boys are going to be handing out money to the impovished to develop sustainably, how will they dictate the spread of these funds? Will the rich there just get richer?

3. Who do both parties believe to be a reputable source of fact?

4. What will this mean for nuclear power? Surely as a major source of uranium, Australia wouldn't want to wipe this from the drawing board?

5. How long will the ETS continue-that is, when will it be determined to be a success? What measure will be used? Change in climate?

I'm sure I will have more questions as I process it all.

I'll attempt to answer all these questions tommorrow as I'm feeling a bit drained after a weeks battle to get it defeated.

[Guest]

The scientists who are opposed to the climate change research wouldn't be the sons of those that told us smoking cigarettes posed no danger to our health would they.

[melon....]

The scientists who are opposed to the climate change research wouldn't be the sons of those that told us smoking cigarettes posed no danger to our health would they.

Have you read the Hacked IPCC emails that were published? You should. Now there's some real eye opening from a bunch of manipulative spin doctors that have sucked in a fair proportion of people. Luckily teh majority are onto this scam and have, are and will say NO to this tax scam.

[Guest]

If changes could be put in place and it did not cost a cent out of our pocket, would people then be a little more welcoming on this?

The ETS is still a proposal yet today, right now, electricity has gone up 20% to pay for "infrastructure upgrades". Why aren't we jumping up and down about that?

The 2 major supermarkets hold us by the nuts with their pricing. They offer "discounts" on petrol yet we all know that it is a farce, but many subscribe to the scheme because it saves them money.

We don't do ourselves a lot of favours in making it look like we have a bit of sense about us.

[Guest]

Have you read the Hacked IPCC emails that were published? You should. Now there's some real eye opening from a bunch of manipulative spin doctors that have sucked in a fair proportion of people. Luckily teh majority are onto this scam and have, are and will say NO to this tax scam.

Stop lying through you teeth Melon! They were not IPCC emails.

Chook.