Australians are as gullibly stupid as Americans!

[Guest]

But unfortunately, they made the mistake of taxing something that can be "abated" by planting more trees.

awww, he even put quotation marks.....so in this fantasy world we will just plant more and more trees and this will reduce our collective pollution....awwwww cute....

quick..tell the tree loggers that they are the cause of it all.......the industrial revolution just needed a few trees.........as the world urbanises maybe "we" should recolonise Africa and turn it into a forest.

[Guest]

You are so utterly unwilling to be reasonable and resort to either pettifogging or insults which shows you to be the lesser person in this argument. But I will continue to fight my corner as a I know I am right.

The following is scientific fact. From here.

How do trees give oxygen?

As other green plants, trees have leaves that contain little green chemical factories. These are able to use the energy of sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into chemical compounds such as sugars. As a by-product of that chemical reaction oxygen is given off.

There is no other chemical reaction in the world that makes so many tons of stuff per minute. And it is most likely that the oxygen molecules you are breathing now were made by a green plant somewhere on earth. Since that very special chemical reaction is a building-up or synthetic reaction and is driven by light, it is called photosynthesis.

Ergo, more trees, more Carbon Dioxide used and more oxygen produced.

And to be brutally honest, there are too many people on this planet which does tax it's resources.

[crikey chris]

This is what concerns me about the views of science.

Science is research, research throws up hypotheses. Hypotheses are researched. Observations are made. These are evidence-based and peer reviewed.

No one claims anything's set in concrete (except for arm chair experts). If later research reveals a past view is invalid, I wouldn't call it a "mistake", I would call it "more knowledge" . The world's knowledge bank is doubling in less than 2 years now, it seems scientists are the only people happy to be proven wrong. In fact, they work very hard to prove each other wrong. Look at the 1989 nuclear fusion debacle.

I would say each passing day of increasing knowledge about the way the world works, increases the reliability of existing teachings. Medicine is a perfect example of this, particularly in terms of the last frontier- the human mind! We don't have possession by the devil any more, rather things like schizophrenia or alzheimer's. But look what happens when a section of society declares that they know enough about the topic and declare existing knowledge comprehensive and conclusive. New things are being discovered everyday, the knowledge is improving.

Each passing day seems to highlight more and more doubt on the extreme scenarios that the political classes like to throw around, and having a hypothesised effect on the climate demonstrates how laughable the 'science is in' statements all are.

Scientists have underestimated the role that water vapour plays in determining global temperature changes, according to a new study that could fuel further attacks on the science of climate change. But the "experts" say their research does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming, but they call for "closer examination" of the way climate computer models consider water vapour.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

The biggest con that has been pulled here is passing these works of climate imagination as science. Its based on insufficient data, poor modeling, skewed graphs and suprisingly little respect for other scientific disciplines in particular statistics. Climate teachings it seems can only be done by the experts. Despite its many errors we must believe it and most importantly we can't question it. We can not apply our analysis or logic to anything contained therein. Those who do will be defamed. Sounds more like a religion than science.

It really is as simple as socialism being expensive. Labor & the ferral Greens need to raise more revenue to hand out to our disability support pensions and our generous welfare system. If it wasnt a carbon tax it would be an oxygen tax lol.

This whole debate has got down to those who believe, and those who don't. Unfortunately neither side gets a vote. For something that will cripple our disposible income, and is economic suicide, smells like communism. Our Fabian leader and her ferral Green sidekick hard at work at destroying our standard of living. Scary times. And how will 10% of the tax going into the United Nations coffers reduce temperatures? No-one can prove that destroying the Australian economy will reduce temperatures? Yep, redistribution of wealth to the poorer African countries will reduce the sea levels? Absolute garbage. We have all been taken for a ride. Society is too gullable.

I have no interest in the games scientists play with their "peer reviewed" papers just as long as these games are played in the journals. But when their buncum crap is fed to populist politicians who wish to change my life forever, I rise up to defend my lifestyle.

[Guest]

You are so utterly unwilling to be reasonable and resort to either pettifogging or insults which shows you to be the lesser person in this argument. But I will continue to fight my corner as a I know I am right.

.

Thats a real talent you have there for pastiche. Could have pulled that from any Victorian novel.
So many wonderful constructions like, "i know i am right" that are rich with ironoic potential. Cos most of the populist commentary on this......a righteous repudiation of science, (Lord Monkton i presume) wallows in the theatrics of arguement....in your case the parody of reasoned syntax...or in Crikey Chris case, the regress arguement.

[Guest]

This whole debate has got down to those who believe, and those who don't. Unfortunately neither side gets a vote. For something that will cripple our disposable income, and is economic suicide, smells like communism. Our Fabian leader and her feral Green sidekick hard at work at destroying our standard of living. Scary times. And how will 10% of the tax going into the United Nations coffers reduce temperatures? No-one can prove that destroying the Australian economy will reduce temperatures? Yep, redistribution of wealth to the poorer African countries will reduce the sea levels? Absolute garbage. We have all been taken for a ride. Society is too gullible.

I have no interest in the games scientists play with their "peer reviewed" papers just as long as these games are played in the journals. But when their bunkum crap is fed to populist politicians who wish to change my life forever, I rise up to defend my lifestyle.

This is the tragedy of this country. We are essentially sheep. For all it's faults, America and Americans have always struck back against tyranny and bad governance.



The Gadsden flag is a symbol of that rebellion. That's why the Tea Party has adopted it as their symbol.

I'm not advocating creating a "Tea Party" because I get the vibe of burning crosses and white robes coming off the majority of it's members. But waiting to be led like sheep across a minefield with any sort of unwarranted and unjustifiable tax is just folly.

[Guest]

. But when their buncum crap is fed to populist politicians who wish to change my life forever, I rise up to defend my lifestyle.

LOL
what...off the couch?

[Guest]

LOL
what...off the couch?

I think that's pretty much what it means. Australians are indolent, ponderous and sheeplike. I would suspect that the majority of the population wouldn't even know who Julia Gillard is, let alone what she intends to foist upon them.

This is the tragedy. Mediocrity is tolerated.

[Rocky Rhodes]

LOL
what...off the couch?

And what is so wrong with our lifestyle?

If you don't like it then untie yourself from the tree you are rooting and move to antartica or somewhere else.

[Guest]

And what is so wrong with our lifestyle?

If you don't like it then untie yourself from the tree you are rooting and move to antartica or somewhere else.

Rocky, 3 points for naming another continent and a bonus point for the "somewhere else".

"our" lifestyle is fine beacuse "i" can easily avoid it.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...707-1h4or.html

[Rocky Rhodes]

Rocky, 3 points for naming another continent and a bonus point for the "somewhere else".

"our" lifestyle is fine beacuse "i" can easily avoid it.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...707-1h4or.html

WTF are you on about bogan with the sissy watch. I've never listened to allan jones ever, so your stupid sterotypes are just that, stupid.

THis is not about "i", this is about we as australians. Why should our lifestyle suffer because the top 1% of society wants to get richer.

The ironic thing about this is so called leftoids helping the rich get richer i.e macquarie bank, the goldman sacchs, the multi-national oilers like exxon etc. This has nothing to do with the environment, its just a scam for suckers like yourself. Like a said before, i lean left so therefore i am against the rich sucking off the rest of us.

The ignorant person backs against his own interest, you seriously need to wake up and work out what this is actually about.

[Rocky Rhodes]

You couldn't load that question up more even if you had a magazine attached to it so it's a pointless exercise trying to answer it.

It comes down to this. You either believe mankind is contributing to global warming through the increase of CO2 emissions and as such we all need to pay our share to reduce those emissions. Or you don't believe in man made global warming and as such no argument will convince you otherwise.

Chook.

But but was not this supposed to be about the big pollutors paying for the cost of their pollution because they are the one's making the big profits. Yet you want the consumer to pay? So if the big pollutors pass the cost to us consumers then where is the disincentive for them in continuing current operations? Why would they invent billions in other alternatives if we are paying for their pollution, which is insignificant btw.

Clearly, this is nothing to do with actually helping the environment. It is everything to do with helping the rich get richer.

[Guest]

Like a said before, i lean left so therefore i am against the rich sucking off the rest of us.

The ignorant person backs against his own interest.

hmmmm. Do you lean left because of a tumor in the lateral cortex?

[Guest]

But but was not this supposed to be about the big pollutors paying for the cost of their pollution because they are the one's making the big profits. Yet you want the consumer to pay? So if the big pollutors pass the cost to us consumers then where is the disincentive for them in continuing current operations? Why would they invent billions in other alternatives if we are paying for their pollution, which is insignificant btw.

Clearly, this is nothing to do with actually helping the environment. It is everything to do with helping the rich get richer.

It is a tax, everyone will pay it one way or another. The big polluters will pay the most and that money will be passed back to those that can least afford the tax.

Chook.

[Rocky Rhodes]

It is a tax, everyone will pay it one way or another. The big polluters will pay the most and that money will be passed back to those that can least afford the tax.

Chook.

Its a simple concept chook. If we consumers are paying the cost of this then the energy giants are not

that money will be passed back to those that can least afford the tax.

yeah right, multinationals like Goldman sachs, macquarie bank, the global oilers etc, they will be the benefactors of this. Exxon even support the global warming funds. Why? because they will benefit in the long run..

How long do you believe the government will keep paying compensation. Our debt is getting worse and worse..

[Rocky Rhodes]

hmmmm. Do you lean left because of a tumor in the lateral cortex?

Do you wear a sissy watch because you are a homo?