Thread: Why we should oust Labor and make the Greens extinct at the next election

As time goes on and we move closer to the Carbon Tax /ETS, more and more people are educating themselves about the phenomenon known

as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and the effects of CO2 emissions on our atmosphere.

For instance it is now common knowledge that,

1. Total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% or 0.00039

2. 97% of CO2 emissions come from the ecosystems, i.e. nature itself, oceans, land, vegetation etc.

3. 3% of CO2 emissions are manmade.

Thanks to the scare tactics of Al gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the last decade we have been led to believe that manmade CO2 emissions into the atmosphere where causing global warming which would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect and the destruction of the Earth as we know it, we were also told that the science was settled on this issue.

Al Gore used the now very famous hockey stick curve to correlate the rising of the Earth’s average mean temperature with the rise in CO2 emissions, This graph is the Hockey Stick Graph created by geophysicist Michael Mann it’s also known as MBH98.

This was a deception because as countless scientific papers prove the temperature drives CO2 emissions in our atmosphere and not the other way around, as the Earth warms up more and more CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the ecosystems like the oceans and land masses alike.

The IPCC has now removed Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph from its papers because it was an embarrassment when many global warming skeptics and historians picked up on its omission of the medieval warming period and the little ice age.

The IPCC has also been pulled up on the quotations it made about glaciers disappearing by 2035, which now it admits was wrong and put it down to a typo, would they have said anything if it wasn’t pointed out?

The only evidence we have that CO2 is driving global warming and may create a runaway greenhouse effect is the IPCC’s Global Circulation Models (GCM), i.e. computer models.

Many scientists have pointed out that these computer models are just not sophisticated enough to determine future climate change on Earth, and many have pointed out that the data that is entered at the coal face is not accurate with claims that the effects of CO2 are amplified 40 fold in comparison to the effects of the sun.

Not to mention the IPCC’s neglect of the albedo affects of the clouds and cosmic ray influence therefore as with all computer models the end result is only as good as the information being fed into the computer, therefore it stands to reason garbage in garbage out.

There is also no empirical data to support that an increase in CO2 emissions drives global warming and the greenhouse effect. There are many other graphs that are never shown that show millions of years ago the CO2 content in our atmosphere was as high as 7000 parts per million volume (ppmv) compared to today 390 ppmv.

Surely if CO2 was going to drive a runaway greenhouse effect it would have already happened.

The other fact is if the ecosystems – (oceans, land, vegetation etc), throw up 97% of the CO2 in our atmosphere and with heat can add more.

Then it stands to reason in light of our sun being very active in the last century that the ecosystems have contributed to the increase in CO2

from 280ppm to 390ppm at what ratio?, I would guess at 97%.

If that were the case my theory is this extra increase in CO2 of 110ppm can be attributed to,

1. Natural made CO2 = 106.7ppm

2. Manmade Co2 = 3.3ppm

Plus you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out that 0.00039 is a very small volume compared to 100 lets join them together 100.00039, if the Earth’s atmosphere in total volume is represented by the number 100 then the total amount of CO2 is 0.00039.

If we were to compute this volume in one Cubic metre of air.
Now one cubic metre of air is equal to one thousand litres (1000L).
Where L = Litres
Therefore the total volume in Litres (L) of CO2 in one cubic metre (1000L) of air is
1000 x 0.00039 = 0.39 Litres or 390 millitres
97% CO2 comes from the ecosystems/nature = 97% of 0.39 = 0.3783 Litres or 378.3 milliliters
3% CO2 comes from man = 3% of 0.39 = 0.0117 Litres or 11.7 millilitres
Australia’s emissions are (1.5% of all Total manmade CO2) within that one cubic metre (1000L) of air our contribution of CO2 volume is
1.5% x 11.7 = 0.1755 millilitres
We would have to multiply that number (0.1755) by 5.7 to make it one millilitre.

Even though CO2 is a green house gas and can cause global warming the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is too small to heat up just about

anything through re-radiation let alone a volume the size of the Earth’s atmosphere.

It has been estimated by scientists that if our current level of CO2 (390ppm) where doubled the average mean temperature on Earth would increase by one degree Celsius.

In the last ten years there has been many works by prominent scientists around the world proving that the Earth’s mean average temperature is driven by the sun and not by CO2 emissions, especially the 3% that are manmade.

This brings us to the question of why our current Labor/Green government is introducing a carbon tax/ETS system that is based on fraudulent data by an organisation whose reputation is now questionable based on its erroneous claims and the misrepresentation of climate data.

Bob Brown on Q&A a few weeks back claimed that Christine Milne the new head of the greens was the architect/designer of this carbon tax soon to be an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), this reminds me of pilot when he washed his hands for the crucifixion of Christ at the roman court exonifying himself.

And our current Prime Minister Julia Gillard was mainly elected by labor voters because she stood up in front of the nation pledging that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads, I wonder how many labor voters would have still voted for her if she said there would be a carbon tax.

From my understanding the Greens are children of the New World Order, they advocate a Global Governance and as Bob Brown said on Q&A it would look like the current United Nations setup only those members would be elected but by who would they be elected.

Other countries have caught on to this like for example the US, Canada and France who have ditched their carbon tax knowing too well that they would be handing over part of their sovereignty and allowing a foreign organisation to stipulate how why and where energy maybe be consumed and distributed in their countries not to mention the stiff penalties they would face if they couldn’t meet the forecasted targets on CO2 emission cuts.

Canada’s Prime Minister said that they would have to cease using all known forms of fossil fuel energy to meet the CO2 emission cuts which would place that country back into the Stone Age, now is that the kind of life style we want here in Australia, not to mention what will happen to our economy.

Australia will also be handing over 10% of the carbon tax revenue to the United Nations why on Earth would you want to do such a thing, that money can be better spent here in Australia on hospitals and roads and schools etc, after all we are cash strapped it’s not as though it’s coming out of our ears.

How can anyone think that when the biggest polluters in Australia reach their CO2 emission quota and simply go out and buy carbon credits to offset the surplus CO2 emissions will do anything to stop manmade pollution.

How can anyone think for a moment that the farming and trading of carbon credits on the stock exchange as hedge funds and derivatives by traders and speculators will do anything to wipe out manmade pollution is beyond me, that Wayne Swan is a despicable character!

The only thing trading carbon credits on the free market will bring to Australia is financial slavery to every man woman and child by sending out billions of Australian tax payer dollars to overseas institutions.

There is no such thing as free markets today, today the markets are run by bankers and their corporations and this is the system we are headed for.

Look at what the trading of hedge funds and derivatives have done to the United Kingdom (UK), Europe Union (EU) and the US their economies and the people, all these countries are now in danger of losing their sovereignty to the banks through the International Monetary Fund (IMF), how can anyone think that by placing our faith in this system somehow our pollution will get cleaned up.

You have to ask yourself why we can’t take direct action here in Australia by getting our biggest polluters to become the cleanest polluters in the world if they retro fit their current plants with the latest technology in,

1. Fabric filter bags
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbers
4. Carbon sequestration
5. Gas fired power stations

With the looming Global Financial Crises (GFC) that’s about to hit the world our government is setting us up for one of the biggest price hikes in energy and all goods and services, we are ever going to see and a reduction in our standard of living.

The Australian Carbon Tax at $23/tonne is the most expensive Carbon tax in the world and will disadvantage Australian industry and Australian competitiveness through the world markets.

All for what because we send up 1.5% of all Manmade CO2 emissions which places us at the bottom end of the polluting scale, don’t listen to that monumental LIAR Julia Gillard, she comes out and says that we are one of the highest polluters per capita meaning per head because our population is small.

If you look at total emissions by all nations we are 16th on the ladder with around 1.5% CO2 emissions while Chinas around 25% and the US around 20% how can we be in the biggest polluters group with 1.5% what a liar.

Julia Gillard, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Wayne Swan and every Member of Parliament who passed this carbon tax should be pelted with eggs and tomatoes every time they are seen on the streets of this great country.

Because they are responsible for its demise.

The worst government in our history.



.

Dumb,
you are the onliest one responding to your own thread, mate, looks like with your obsession against the Greens and Labor you have lost it.....
The Greens might save the planet one day, if more people vote for them, this is certainly not the case with our other Australian political parties....
Cheers bud

Originally Posted by m2catter

Dumb,
you are the onliest one responding to your own thread, mate, looks like with your obsession against the Greens and Labor you have lost it.....
The Greens might save the planet one day, if more people vote for them, this is certainly not the case with our other Australian political parties....
Cheers bud

LOL, what a load.

Please tell me (no deflections) what an Australian policital party can do to save the planet.

Originally Posted by Oxyboy

LOL, what a load.

Please tell me (no deflections) what an Australian policital party can do to save the planet.

There are Green Parties not only in Australia, it is a movement in many countries that cannot be stopped. Intelligent people vote Green.
But I think trying to explain that to you is just wasted time, sorry mate.

Originally Posted by m2catter

There are Green Parties not only in Australia, it is a movement in many countries that cannot be stopped. Intelligent people vote Green.
But I think trying to explain that to you is just wasted time, sorry mate.

Just wait and see, most people i know want these f****ers out at the next election.

And once the carbon tax starts stinging oohh boy maybe the way of the democrates.

Originally Posted by dumbanddumber

Just wait and see, most people i know want these f****ers out at the next election.

And once the carbon tax starts stinging oohh boy maybe the way of the democrates.

Hi Dumb,
that is the problem in our country.
Too many people listen to the scare mongering tactics of Abbotts and his mates, because, let's face it, the majority of us is quite conservative.
Conservatism however stands in the way of progression, in the sense of modernisation.
If we want to develop, we need to leave this conservatism behind us, at least to a certain degree.
I can only see that in part with Labor, but certainly with the Greens.
You vote for Abbotts, and we will fall back at least 50 years, continue licking our big Ally's bum, and always look away when confronted with climate change and possible solutions towards the subject. And why the hack shouldn't gay people not marry? Who are we, to decide for them? Playing God?
We will further exploit our country, for money sake. Big cooperatives must become fatter, suits as, as obese and obedient we have become.
I say lets become forward thinkers, move away from those old socks, our grandparents were wearing....
Mind you, those socks were right at that time, but it is our responsibility to move on....
Regards

Originally Posted by m2catter

Hi Dumb,
that is the problem in our country.
Too many people listen to the scare mongering tactics of Abbotts and his mates, because, let's face it, the majority of us is quite conservative.
Conservatism however stands in the way of progression, in the sense of modernisation.
If we want to develop, we need to leave this conservatism behind us, at least to a certain degree.
I can only see that in part with Labor, but certainly with the Greens.
You vote for Abbotts, and we will fall back at least 50 years, continue licking our big Ally's bum, and always look away when confronted with climate change and possible solutions towards the subject. And why the hack shouldn't gay people not marry? Who are we, to decide for them? Playing God?
We will further exploit our country, for money sake. Big cooperatives must become fatter, suits as, as obese and obedient we have become.
I say lets become forward thinkers, move away from those old socks, our grandparents were wearing....
Mind you, those socks were right at that time, but it is our responsibility to move on....
Regards

Sorry cats in order to be nice i will just say LOL.