Part of the problem (the skepticism issue) is that science regularly proclaims something

as fact when in truth, it is often only conjecture.

Pluto comes to mind.

Yeah, I hope better examples will come to mind... In case you don't know, Pluto still there, it's just classification, a word thing.

Anyhow, the warming debate is going through exactly the same phases as the ozone layer debate in the 1980s.

In both cases, first people with a vested interest (chemical companies, polluting countries, etc.) denied the whole thing - it was "a measurement problem". Then they acknowledged, but said it 'must be' natural. Then, and once it was almost too late, there was consensus and some late actions. Meanwhile they gained out of it a few more years of free pumping s**t in the atmosphere - what they wanted in the first place, really.

The current warming debate has gone from "there is no increase" to "there is one, but it's probably natural". Firstly, the former 'scientists' should be put against the wall and shot.

The argument (it's a head-in-the-sand belief, really) about global warming being 'probably' natural reminds me of the following story: guy sees 2 lights coming into the night, walks 200 feet in the middle of the road, stands smack between the two. You know, just in case they're a couple of motorcycles instead of a car.

The issue with the global warming/climate change debate is that politicians with wheelers and dealers have grabbed the hypothesis by both horns and dragged it into centre stage.

The reason why is money and control. The current ALP federal parliamentary minority is of a progressive bent. It believes it know how to run individuals' lives better than individuals know how to themselves. So it looks for ways to control individual lives.



Bringing in a carbon tax is an aspect of control. Once the tax comes in basically just about everything we pay for will cost more because almost everything we do involves carbon. So we have less money. The government has more money. The government then gives us some of that money back under certain conditions and obligations. The government then tells us how generous and caring it is.

The other issue with taxes on carbon it won't achieve anything besides raising money. It won't reduce emissions. It won't cool down the Earth. All it will do is tax Australians.

If the government was serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions it would ban the export of all coal, gas and other hydrocarbons. Go to Newcastle and see the two kilometer long coal trains heading to the coal terminal. How much carbon dioxide is going to be released when that coal is burnt? Much of the Hunter Valley is being mined for coal that will be shipped overseas.

Its hypocritical to be taxing Australians for carbon dioxide emissions and justifying it by saying we have to reduce our emissions while companies are digging and pumping out every hydrocarbon they can find and flogging it off to whoever wants it. If there is a problem with excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is a global problem.

Jeez how things change in 3 years... I remember posting about GW, CC and explaining how CO2 couldn't physically have the effect they claimed, and got drowned out by people saying I was a head in the sand guy (paraphrasing).

Now look at y'all.

I've always agreed about decreasing and even eliminating pollution, but CO2 isn't pollution... my uncle uses it to grows some real nice veggies in his green house.

felixdcat said...

It gave me a warm fuzzy feeling when I saw Kate Blanchet and M. Caton endorsing the CO2 tax......... they really cares!!!! Mind you how much the red witch payed them already super rich c***s to do that piece of bull manure on TV....... I am sure the amount they received would easily pay the CO2 tax for 100 hard working OZ families for at least 10 years. From no on I will never pay a cent to watch a movie staring those 2 and will download it on Utorrent (just kidding I do not do that illegal s**t).
Common you idiots just do what you do best.. Be actors we have enough sad pollies

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/blanchett-exposed-for-the-crime-of-speaking-up-20110530-1fbdm.html

theDoctor said...


we pollute

we are carbon (based life forms)

ergo, we are carbon polluting

agenda 21

Might as well get our definitions agreed upon. From wiki.

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem"

So the CO2 in Flysurfer's uncle's green house doesn't qualify, not enough of it.

The doc is onto something ?

theDoctor said...


we pollute

we are carbon (based life forms)

ergo, we are carbon polluting

agenda 21

If you want to really dig deep...we feed off our surroundings, therefore...

...we are carbon polluting parasites

Hmmm, and I just started feeling good about myself.

It's a bit sad that the government sees fit to reduce the matter to such an obviously flawed advertising campaign.
More taxpayers money badly spent!
I can only imagine that they are aiming at capturing the lower 15 percentile on the intelligence spectrum.
Regardless of whether man made global warming is real or not, the advertisement is false in many respects.

The visual images indicated that the "carbon pollution" gives us black skies with no sunlight and a barren industrial landscape.
Whereas, if we put in a carbon tax we have sunny days, blue skies, and lots of flowers, green grass and happy people.
What a load of rubbish!
Neither carbon nor CO2 make black skies. Nobody claims it does. Why does the advertisement make the obviously false correlation?
Obviously it is with the intention of capturing the ignorant with scary images

The term "carbon pollution" is used a number of times. The term is totally incorrect.
Carbon is not a problem to anyone unless they are complaining about coal dust blowing over their town. That would be carbon pollution, but then that's not what the argument is about is it?
The argument is about carbon dioxide. And even that is not pollution. It might be an excess but it is not pollution.
The excess of water in the recent Brisbane floods was not called pollution. It was simply too much water. A flood.

If they want to win an argument they should call it exactly as it is, otherwise when they are caught out lying about the things that are obvious, we assume they are lying about everything else.
So, throw out terms like "carbon pollution" and use the term "excess CO2".
Don't correlate excess CO2 with black skies and barren landscapes. The correlation is factually wrong and every thinking person knows it.

And to finish with, why on earth would Kate Blanchett be regarded as an authority on anything except maybe pimple cream and perfume?
What are her qualifications that make her opinion valuable? Oh. I see. She's an actor. She makes a living by pretending to be someone else.
So why is her opinion any more relevant than the opinion of the local fish shop lady?
It isn't.
Same goes for Michael Caton. Tell him he's dreaming!
Who cares what either of them think?

As I said, more taxpayers money badly spent!
No wonder people think their taxes are wasted.

How accurate is the latest "Carbon tax" campaign? not very....

Have a look at the "animated" power station behind Cate Blanchett pumping out the smoke, that power station is an old fashioned power station built in the 1930 and ceased producing electricity in 1983..... In ENGLAND !!!!!
Its actually the "Battersea Power Station"..... on the Thames river

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station

I assume the other information is just about as accurate

Imo I dont think celebs should be alowed to feature on ads like this. We need facts not dribble from someone that is an actor and maybe just acting??

Its a sad state of affairs

^^^^^

Fair bump - play on.

This thread is a good example of how the whole debate has been hijacked.

They used an image of an old power station that happens to come from Battersea, therefore the whole thing is fake.

Cate Blanchett is rich, therefore the whole thing is fake.

Carbon is necessary for life, therefore the whole thing is fake.

It's cold today, therefore the whole thing is fake.

Julia Gillard has a big arse and talks funny, therefore the whole thing is fake.

Trant said...

Surely "pollution" includes an excess of something, otherwise we wouldn't have "noise pollution"

To the people dead set against any form of carbon tax or ETS, I ask what they would prefer to do? Sit back and do nothing? Or wait until some magical time when all the leaders of the world sit down and all agree on something for the first time in history?

btw, Europe already has a greenhouse gas ETS and America has a sulfur ETS. Even New Zealand has a greenhouse gas ETS in place.

p.s. The American Sulfur ETS is claimed to have reduced sulphur output by 80% in the US.

Well I am afraid that "Sit back and do nothing" will have on global warming
the similar effect than the carbon tax. But no negative effect on my wallet!
OZ sulphur foot print 0.1 / US sulphur foot print 100.

so what will each fart cost us then?

doggie said...

Imo I dont think celebs should be alowed to feature on ads like this. We need facts not dribble from someone that is an actor and maybe just acting??

I think actors and sports personalities should not be allowed on any side of any ad on public issues, including this one, elections, that sort of stuff.

They are bought-out bimbos that happen to have one particular talent (or 2 as the case may be with Kate).

Neither should industry specialists, which have a vested interested.
Nor politicians, who usually have equal vested interest.

I guess all's left are us Seabreezers !!