To all you AGW alarmists out there, read this.

Am I really being asked to watch a video uploaded by a guy called "GoldenSkidmark" who's using "Koozzoo News", whoever the hell they are, as evidence of "Julia Gillard's Zionist Global Warming Lies"?

 

These are the people you are putting your trust in, good luck.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBrf2kTMrmw"]UN climate panel admits mistake - YouTube[/ame]

 

Well ziggy go right on listening to the propoganda published by the main stream media champ.

Here you might want to look at these also.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIyIMwfcwQ"]Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal; Part 1 - series Introduction by the Galileo Movement - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCPWKI_H6SM"]Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal; Part 2 - Rogues Gallery by the Galileo Movement - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdgpBfEGCbg"]Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal, Part 3 - Real World Science - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qifmNexSiUM"]Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal, Part 4 - this is going to hurt - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWE_aLCMQrM"]Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal; Part 5 - Protect our Freedom - YouTube[/ame]

 

Here are a few of examples of how a market based system will do more harm than good for eliminating pollution.

1. Harmful energy price volatility

2. Few greenhouse gas reductions

3. Raises energy price for consumers

4. Creates billions in windfall profits for utility owners

5. Even economist that thought of cap and trade dont believe it to be an appropriate tool to reduce greenhouse emmissions.

6. Carbon offsets (credits) viewed as an intergrity destroying add on that was not part of the acid rain program in the US.

7. Carbon offsets (credits) have the potential to increase greenhouse gas emmissions rather than lowering them, because simply by purchasing them means that you can burn more fossils fuels than would otherwise been allowed in the cap and trade system with no credits.

8. At the 5.24 mark of the video they explain how the production of a particular refrigerant in Europe which has an extremely powerful greenhouse gas as a by-product is in-expensive and easy to capture and destroy, yet because investors were hell bent on selling its detsruction (by-product) as a carbon offset to make a profit they would not allow manufactureres to destroy this by product, this is because it was twice as profitable to sell the destruction of the by-product as it was to sell the refrigerant itself.

9. The cap and trade on acid rain that bugs keeps telling us has worked in the US is not because of the market based system it was based on BUT rather because of easy tweaks to existing infrastructure, ie. the use of lower sulphur coal and gas scrubbers in the powerstations, involving little new infrastructure and no inovation to change to clean energy.
And they started to produce excess refrigerant to make profit on the detruction of the by-product, in the mean time all this by-product is being released into the atmosphere.

Now all you crazies that believe in a market based system - GO FIGURE THAT ONE FFS.

Anyway there's lots more if you care to look.

Both these people work as attorneys at the US environmental protection agency and oth have over 20 years experience each.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA-QufQzuWU"]The Huge Mistake Climate Change Solutions 2009 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Yes you guys are, this report does not say that global warming is not occurring.

My way of looking at it is this.

1: Global warming is true, and anything we can do to slow it down or prevent it is good.

2: Global warming is not true, but anything we can do to stop/reduce our rate of polluting our planet purely for profit is good.

3: Sticking our head in the sand is a little like sticking it up our R's

 

That video says, don't use an ETS, use a CARBON TAX!

Are you serious??? You are in fact in favour of a Carbon Tax???

An ETS is the cheapest solution, it is not the fastest solution. Some of the points they raise are good, but assume that regulation will be weak or inadequate. Strong regulation is obviously key to the proper functioning of any carbon policy, including "carbon fees".

And of course the video is specific to a US bill, not Australia's legislation.

We have a 3 year period of "carbon fees", where compensation is given to households as suggested in the video.

We also have 14 billion dollars of direct investment in renewable technology.

And when they say that an ETS will not drive private investment in renewable technology, I've gotta call BS on that. A high rate of tax will provide MORE investment incentive than an ETS though, obviously.

 

I'm not condoning their solution but rather pointing out the problems associated with a market based system.

As you can see its open to all sorts of rorts and fraud, not to mention the harm that more pollution will cause.

 

So you agree that co2 emissions should be reduced then?

Yes, just like with taxes, there is the possibility for loop holes and perverse incentives with an ETS. It's down to the legislation and the regulation bodies to ensure these don't occur. They're addressing a US bill, not the Australian bill.

 

I'm not against cleaning up our pollution!

But i'm against fleecing this country of its wealth through a market based system that will send out billions of Australian tax payer dollars to foreign institutions.

How can anyone in Australia support this system?

 

So you would support a tax?

 

Direct action as in getting the biggest polluters in Australia to become the cleanest polluters in the world if they retro fit their plants with the latest technology in

1. Fabric Filter bags
2. Electro static precipitators
3. Scrubbers
4. Carbon sequestration

OR

5. Gas fired power stations, we have plenty of the stuff just like coal.

NO i dont like Tony Abbotts direct plan either, its giving money away for nothing.

The above is how we can fix the problem here in our back yard without giving away billions to overseas institutions.

The companies will wear the cost, when they took over i dont think we guaranteed them a profit that grows exponentially.

Yes its up to them to do the right thing and if it means that they make a $100 million dollar profit/per year for the next ten years instead of a $150 million dollar profit / per year for the next ten years then so be it. Our government could also help by pitching in abit.

There still making a profit and if they dont like it the government should nik them of and take over, then we'll have an extra $100 million dollars a year to throw into our schools and roads and hospitals etc.

 

Yep They admitted a mistake

Now the Oregon petition people have yet to do the same

 

Sorry but you want me to believe a YOU TUBE??

Not even mainstream media

Most people on the internet learn to discriminate between all out bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and fact based reports and reviews. It is a defence mechanism otherwise you would find yourself sending money to "ripoffartist.com" to fund the fight against the NWO, which everyone knows is backed by Aliens from Centauri Prime

You tube for the most part is all out bull(*)(*)(*)(*) - and part of that slippery slope to conspiracy city

 

You cannot make Coal power plants "clean". You can make them a bit "cleaner", but it's not a real solution.

Just to be clear, do you support a tax or not?

In what universe do you think that the coalition will re-nationalise the energy, mining or banking sector?

In what universe do you think that Abbott will support running a budget deficit?

In what universe do you think that that Abbott will support more regulations on the market?

The party who is closest to your thinking is THE GREENS. Certainly not the coalition.

 

Did you expect to see the truth on main stream media?

Not as smart as you make out to be!

 

You can become one of the cleanest polluters in the world.

As for the rest stop putting words into my mouth, i never said such things about the coalition.

 

The problem is would they have said something even if it wasn't brought to light?

makes you wonder how more of these mistakes are in their documents!

 

"You can become one of the cleanest polluters in the world" is an oxymoron.

So you don't support the Coalitions economic policy, there we go.

 

What did Malcom Fraser say when Keating sold our commonwealth bank?

We would have to put our money under our matresses or worlds to that effect.

Anyway today both sides of politics have embraced this broken form of capatalism.

And the sooner one of them sets it straight the better.

And no my statement is good.

Simply by converting to gas from coal we immediately reduce our CO2 output by 1/4%.

Now how many billions and how many years will it take to achieve this under the proposed market system 50 maybe 100 years and billions of tax payer dollars.

 

Part of that $14 billion is going towards closing down the oldest dirtiest coal power plants and opening up gas power plants.

But hey, I would support a straight up carbon tax instead of the govt's ETS. There's just no way business will wear it. Hard enough getting the dam ETS through.

 

It must be hard to keep up the denial:

Australia will be hotter in coming decades
Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 oC by 2030. If global greenhouse gas emis- sions continue to grow at rates consistent with past trends, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to 5.0 oC by 2070. Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north- western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.

Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades
In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in south- ern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas.

It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950
There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia.

Climate change is real
Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf

 

There is no conspiracy - otherwise they would have covered this up. Instead they apologised and promised to do better next time

It is a HUGE report if you have ever read it (and I doubt you have even read the summaries) and it covers a LOT of ground. It says something for the work they put into it that there have only been a couple of minor mistakes
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

 

You really want me to believe that the TRACE gas CO2 which is 0.039% in total of the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for global warming/cooling.

You also really want me to believe that from that total amount of CO2 which is 0.039% of the Earth's atmosphere only 3% is manmade the rest is natural from the Earth itself.

You really want me to believe that manmade CO2 which is 3% of 0.039 = 0.0017 is responsible for global warming/cooling.

Aint gonna happen so stop trying.

If the Earth was so finely tuned we would have persihed millions of years ago when the CO2 content was much higher.

But as you can see we are still here, and the Earth is still going through its atmospheric cycles in accordance with the activity of our sun.

Dont need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.

And so i come back to my original arguement.

The carbon tax is a scam to fleece nations of their wealth while farming carbon credits and selling them as derivatives on the stock exchange will not clean up man made pollution.

Its just another investment opportunity for bankers and their corporations.

Wake up FFS.

OOHH yeah CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL.

Well ofcourse ist farking real, climate change has been with us from day dot and will be with us till the end, no human tax will ever change that.

 

On the first page of that link it says that the IPCC is not a large organisation and that about 10 people in its staff.

And you believe these CLOWNS who by the way dont even monitor or do experiments with regards to the atmosphere.

Their just publishers of scientific papers nothing more, they probably cant even understand whats on them .

Show me some real proof that what they are saying is true!?

Otherswise its just the natural cycle of the Earth.

 

Yup! After all how thick is the mirror coating on glass??

Linky??

It isn't how big it is - it is what it will do to you that counts

Actually they did - look it up - sudden climate change is associated with extinction events

And you have proof solar output has been higher the last 50 years?

Errrrr- since you got it wrong........

rant rant rant
rant rant rant rant