The carbon tax explained

you have to start making them one day

until then, just let the media do it for you

seems to be working for most people

 

Yes it was a reply to another. Yes you did say it is not you theory. No, it was not misinterpreted. Questions where directed to you as you do think that you will have not problem with the program and consider it a good start. My questions are directed to you as you would attempt to show a clearer understanding of the issue.

Simple logic is not your strength, is it? No, I did not attack your words, I question your understanding, of how this program works. Your statement of how this program is going to work and the idea of what it will do is what I question.

LOL, where did you get 'The government keeps none of the money'? Even the person, who built the policy, states that only half of the revenue from this tax, will be returned in compensation.

I get it, you can not answer the questions, so you attempt to insult our intelligence while trying to show how much More knowledgeable you are.

The fact is, I did not rant, as you insinuate. I asked questions, of your understanding, of your own words. You show, you are simply somebody, that repeats others, without thought.

Thank you for your input, or whoever it is, that provided it.

 

You are absolutely right!

CO2 is a natural occurring substance that is plant food!

Just like manure.

Could I please drop a load around at your house?

 

Increasing emissions of Co2 are increasing the amount of heat being retained in the atmosphere. It is pollution.

You need to buy yourself a better dictionary sonny.

 

incorrect

you're as ignorant as you are arrogant

incorrect

more ignorance

no surprise

 

No - C02 can be toxic:
Carbon dioxide intoxication may be acute or subacute. Subacute toxicity may be caused by the body's failure to eliminate endogenous CO2, as occurs in hypoventilation resulting from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, opioid poisoning, or other causes of respiratory failure. Medical interventions such as permissive hypercapnea can also cause subacute CO2 toxicity, which typically manifests itself as gradual somnolence.
http://www.emedmag.com/html/pre/tox/0500.asp

But of course - that is completely irrelevant. Toxicity has nothing to do with whether something is a pollutant.

Pure, clean, fresh water is a pollutant when it is present in concentrations where it does harm - such as in a coral reef environment.

Please go away - you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

why not?

you spread it around quite liberally in here

 

as is every post you've made

why change now?

 

I am not the one claiming CO2 is not a pollutant.

Have you looked the word up yet? You should.

 

Find a dictionary - look up the word "pollutant" - then get back to us.

 

so 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere is causing that is it?

really?

where is this happening einstein?

can you say "scaremongering"

oh, i think you can

 

find an education

co2, as 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere, is not pollution

do you always fail this bad? i'm guessing yes

don't bother getting back to us, ... it was rhetorical (look it up in your dictionary)

 

One thing at a time champ. Why did you write:

You were clearly wrong. What do you think you will achieve by telling lies to progress your argument?

 

i ask this of AGW followers all the time

they never answer me though

 

More than 99% of the earths atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen which are not greenhouse gasses.

Of the tiny amount of the earth's atmosphere that is greenhouse gasses - CO2 is one of the most significant. A significant increase in this gas beyond that which is beneficial to human habitation is a pollutant..

You are way out of your depth sonny.

 

No - you told a lie. Please explain yourself.

Why did you say that CO2 cannot be a toxin.

 

Ah! Forget it - just read my signature and try to work it out

 

nice signature

here's a better one:

there's an AGW sucker born every day

 

So, you know more than the scientists at CSIRO, the scientists at the BOM and virtually every science academy in the world?

You ARE aware aren't you that this "minute amount of CO2" in the atmosphere actually stops Earth from becoming "snowball earth" aren't you? I mean, you DO have the basic idea that Co2 does play a role in the temperature regulation of the planet?

 

"A significant increase in this gas beyond that which is beneficial to human habitation" has not occurred

therefore, co2 is not a pollutant in this context

it's simple once you apply your mind (give it a go)

stop the scaremongering, stop watching 60 minutes, start to think for yourself
(you might actually enjoy it)

 

The increase in atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic emissions has caused the earth's climate to change significantly from the climate in which modern human society has developed, and continued increase in emissions will increase this impact.

Therefore, co2 is a pollutant in this context

 

Hmmm, interesting hypothesis.

Followed up by a bold prediction.

And then rounded out with a pithy conclusion. Nice.

Such a pity they're all wrong though.

 

Steady now Bugs, you are starting to make wild statements.

No, increase in total atmospheric co2. We will have to shut down the whole of 'western' civilisation, all go back to subsistence farming and get rid of at least half the worlds population or the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase and climate change will continue to happen.

Gillards great big tax on everything sure won't have any effect.

 

It's pretty clear that Gillard and Labor are not the slightest bit interested in what they keep referring to as 'climate change'.
Why would you introduce a carbon tax, supposedly to somehow stop this climate change being caused by burning coal and petroleum and at the same time wack big new taxes on cleaner renewable energy sources such as ethanol and biodiesel, put new taxes on cleaner LNG and drop subsidies for solar power? They are even refusing to back activated carbon technology which is the only technology that is actually taking carbon OUT of the cycle.
We now find out that they are stripping $340 million from the scientific research budget. (while in the last 12 months they have spent $13.5 million on charter flights for bloody 'asylum seekers'!!)
What the hell is going on!?

 

No - it is not a "wild statement". It is one supported by IPCC AR4 - a document which summarises the current state of scientific research on the subject:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level
...
Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html

Steady now Adultmale, you are starting to make wild statements.

I can support my opinion. Where is the evidence to support yours?