The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Carbon tax nonsense > Comments

Carbon tax nonsense : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 6/5/2011

The protest movement has become mainstream and oppresses the oppressed, just like they've always been oppressed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All
roses1 I can understand your frustration with the vipers, but calling them names doesn't cure their denial does it, so really do you care whether you convince anyone, or is it just more alarmist steam releasing?

One problem with the whole carbon campaign is your message, even you can't get it right or even consistent with other alarmists.

You say we are 3rd highest emitter of GHG per capita, but other sources say 16th in CO2, and of course the primary Australian alarmists the Greens say No1 in CO2.

So do you define your GHGs? no of course not, it's another vague sort-of message from an alarmist who really doesn't understand the debate, but lives in his own world

There's no proof of increasing severe weather, in fact the BOM says the opposite. So what's going on, you berate deniers for not believing the "science", then deny it yourself.

That's my point, the green eco alarmist climate scientology message is so confused, so idiotic and so personal depending on the alarmist spraying it, that the rest of us just smile and move away from the strange person waving their arms and trying to scare the children.

Over use of resources, according to whom? Another fable from the eco basket of doom. Do the Chinese believe that, the Americans? No of course not it's another eco nut austerity dream.

None of us want to live your life of austerity which is the underlying reason for your new faith in alarmism, guilt driven of course.

We all grew up wanting a better life, not a worse one.

So please keep ranting away at the evil vipers, a nest that grows ever larger with people who are not impressed by your lack of communications skills, the confused messages - every one of you transmits your personal solutions.

The protests will get bigger against a big new tax.

While I await the public disobedience and marches and street violence from the fools demanding more tax .. bring it on, food for international amusement at the stupid Australians
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 7 May 2011 7:47:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer there was more money in denying tobacco causes cancer but we do what we can eh.
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 7 May 2011 12:57:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again rpg seems to be getting his information from dodgy blogs or tabloid jounalists. His characterisation of climate science as "the green eco alarmist climate scientology message" doesn't remotely resemble the real science, as it is published in the scientific literature. Perhaps rpg should do his homework. He puts so much fervor into his denialist rants.

Meanwhile all is complacency in the Aitkin household, with everything for the best in this best of all possible worlds. But wait! What's this? The global insurance industry is worried? Can this be? See:
http://www.genevaassociation.org/pdf/Risk_Management/GA-Developing_World_Press_Release.pdf
Posted by nicco, Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rache writes
'If the sceptics have their way and are proven wrong (again) then perhaps humanity will deserve what it gets in the years ahead.'

you forgot chapter and verse, maybe try this one

(Gal 6:7) Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he also will reap.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
for Nicco:

But the article you refer to only reinforces my point. The insurers are talking about the need to accumulate and publish data — and they're not talking about carbon dioxide but about weather. You can get insurance now,, in our country, for weather-related possibilities, like storm, flood and fire, depending on your area. There are risks associated with these events, and there are sufficient data for companies to calculate the risk, and sell you a policy.

But no one will insure you against the possibility that average global temperature will rise by 2%. Why? Because it's not clear how you could measure that accurately, and not clear why it would be other than in your interest (depending on where you live). Projections about future climate and what might happen then are about Vagueland, not Australia. You say elsewhere that if there is only the slightest chance that the doomsayers are right we should act now, it's the only planet we have, and so on.

Well, there actually is a slight chance that the earth will bump into an asteroid in the next fifty years. Do you think that we should act now to stop that occurring? My understanding is that we could put a decently accurate measure of the risk against that one (it's not high, but it's there). Do you want us to act now to prevent that occurring? Why not?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Saturday, 7 May 2011 4:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cornonacob and rache

You guys are throwing muck around hoping something will stick. I would call that very nasty but its probably that you genuinely believe there are energy companies out there fnding sceptical science and comment.

As has been shown many times, the energy companies are simply not in the debate. Occasionally you will see someone refer to $1 million here or a few hundred thousand there that the energy companies have given to this or that group that may then have something to do with talking sense (which you call scepticism). One green group managed to get the count up to past $20 million, without realising that it was an utterly trivial sum compared to the billions flowing into global warming science worldwide. The department of Climate Change turns over $80 million annually, Greenpeace has a global budget of 400 million euros plus.

Nor is there any reason for the energy companies to be involved. Tobacco companies were concerned over research showing that its optional product was both addictive and poisonous. On the other hand no-one has yet found a way to substitute for fossil fuels. The alternative energy systems are mostly marginal or outright useless.

You should think before you throw muck around.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:06:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy