Is there anything good about the carbon tax???????

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by dumbanddumber, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    from your link, he seems pretty dishonest and money hungry ... give us a break
     
  2. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey Dom

    Can you please answer this question for me.

    Why would a bank give $50 billion dolars to climate funds?
     
  3. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joanne Nova

    A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    [video=youtube;NtbuM3OuTZg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtbuM3OuTZg[/video]
     
  4. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Maybe they want to ensure that if it is right, then they are in on it. Maybe they think it is the right thing to do. We seem to get caught up with numbers. 50 billion isn't a lot in the big picture.
     
  5. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love these links, you guys don't even try to make it hard for me.

    The Science and Public Policy Institute has ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council.
    Now reading this link about the extremely complex network of connections, most financed by Exxon. Connections to groups like ..
    Frontiers of Freedom http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom_Institute
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change ... Exxon funded http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

    Center for Science and Public Policy
    another Exxon sponsored group

    Now most of these groups have one thing in common, they all pay a Robert Ferguson, aa American Republican Advisor.

    Now does this link sound credible?
     
  6. aussiefree2ride

    aussiefree2ride New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must have thousands of pairs of blinkers, a pair for every conveivable occasion.
     
  7. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No none, I'm not a denialist, I have my eyes OPEN
     
  8. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You live in a small garden my friend. :)
     
  9. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I actually live very much out in the real world my good friend.
     
  10. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good, we can all see how real it is.
     
  11. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, dumb, you missed one of my posts. This is a repost from the last page.

    How do you not know this? Why are you here if you don’t even know where the money is going? Or are you just asking silly rhetorical questions in an effort to bore me to death and/or dumb me down to a point where my frontal lobes disconnect and ooze out my ears, eyesockets and mouth while I slur how right you are in the manner of an automaton? And we’ve already established the GST and the carbon tax can’t be compared as they have fundamentally different objectives. I know you are grasping at straws but this part of the conversation is done.

    Evidence that “we will send out billions of Australian dollars to overseas instituitions that have no interest in curbing greenhouse gases they will be worried about farming carbon credits and the health of the carbon credit market.”

    What institutions? How do we know they have absolutely no interest in curbing their emissions? Where is your list of what institutions the GCF is supporting?

    On top of those very basic and crucial questions… On what grounds do you doubt these statements: http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/green_climate_fund/items/5869.php

    "The GCF will support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties....?

    And…

    "The assets of the GCF will be administered by a trustee only for the purpose of, and in accordance with, the relevant decisions of the GCF Board."

    Let me guess…It’s all part of your conspiracy theory and you don’t actually have any evidence but I should take your word for it because you’re right and that’s that. Right?

    Yes, in your example you chose a company that chose to pay more to raise their emissions rather than make money by lowering them. Well done. Don’t forget the company who managed to reduce emissions and managed to sell leftover carbon credits saved more money than the company who just bought up more credits to make their quota.

    How does that work? Either your emissions increase or they decrease. How does it look like they reduce on paper through the purchase of credits when they actually increase? Do you think buying and selling credits is some shady black-market type deal with no transparency whatsoever?

    Isn’t this one of the reasons why we compensated certain industries? So they didn’t go offshore? Yes, they are not immediately affected (except in cost-competitiveness with low-emission industries) but they now have incentive to reduce their emissions to save/make more money. Especially when the current generators run their useful course and need to be replaced, which you have been told at least three times already. What don’t you understand about that?

    You complain about an alarming drop in our standard of living but then start to whine when the government takes action to prevent this drop from becoming too great. No matter what you are still sitting at your keyboard, foaming at the mouth and ranting angrily about it.

    Depends who you ask. For credibility’s sake, let’s ask some pros:

    http://www.efic.gov.au/country/inte...-economic-insights-2011-carbon-tax-lk3-110822

    “a panel discussion led by Stephen Long (ABC Radio), featured Paul Bloxham (Chief Economist, HSBC Australia and New Zealand), Huw McKay (Executive Director & Senior International Economist, Westpac Banking Corporation) and Roger Donnelly (Chief Economist, EFIC).”

    “Stephen Long: What impact is a carbon price going to have on our chap exporting bricks to Vietnam?
    Roger Donnelly: I’m not sure about bricks to Vietnam and I don’t think the carbon price is a terribly important matter for Australia's overall international competitiveness, that might sound surprisingly and controversial so I’ll go on and explain that in the second. Where I think the carbon price is or does handicap or has the potential to handicap is the competitiveness of emissions intensive industries and actually improve the competitiveness of less emissions intensive industries. I don't think the imposition of a carbon price should be seen as a concern for our ability to pay our way in the world to earn enough export revenue to pay for imports and so forth. Will it precipitate a balance of payments crisis or a currency crisis? I don't think that's a concern at all, it’s going to affect the relative competitiveness of industries.
    Stephen Long: OK, so who wins and who loses and are the people who lose, who are already hard hit for example in manufacturing where there may be a high use of energy?
    Roger Donnelly: Well, it's undoubtedly going to affect relative competitiveness. It’s a broad statement that the emissions intensive industries are the ones that they are going to be relatively handicapped, relatively not necessarily absolutely. On top of that general statement you know, you have to realise that the system is very complicated, there are various industries have been given free permits. Exporting emissions intensive industries have been given other concessions and so forth, that is quite difficult work out. I wouldn't say, I wouldn't cast the issue in terms of will the imposition of a carbon price affect the overall level of international competitiveness, let’s say that it does damp exports in aggregate, well then, there would be corresponding exchange rate adjustments. The exchange rate will be lower than otherwise would be and that would restore competitiveness to other parts of the economy.
    Stephen Long: I’m seeing nods of approval on the panel.
    Paul Bloxham: I think the exchange rate is a much bigger driver of our international competitiveness than the carbon tax will be. And as you say it’s all endogenous anyway so the exchange rate will move to reflect a loss or some loss of competitiveness on, as a consequence of a carbon tax.
    Stephen Long: Ross Garnaut and his final report made that observation that the rise in the exchange rates is a much bigger issue for exporters than, and the carbon price will be trivial by comparison.
    Roger Donnelly: And the rally in coal prices.
    Stephen Long: Yes.
     
  12. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Link me to the relevant parts or admit you cannot/will not. I don’t have 5 hours to spare.

    *yawn*…no citations = meaningless post. When will you learn you need to provide evidence for this sort of thing?

    Of course you were admitting something. You said:

    “So if the head is corrupt what does that say about the body?”

    You were either admitting that “you are assuming this to be the case for every scientist and scientific organization in the world based off a very small amount of scientists from one of the leading groups studying climate change” or you were going against your own argument and saying that the ‘head (the CRU)’ has nothing to do with the ‘body (everyone else)’ and you were just confused and talking gibberish. Which is it?

    Yes, climate change is a big issue right now and so scientists are being funded. But let’s not pretend the prominent skeptics are any better in regards to dubious funding, which I think is the problem here.

    First, we’ve been over this but there is a thing called the ‘burden of proof’, which means that if you make a claim then it is up to it is up to you to prove the claim, not for me to disprove it.

    And again you imply that you are generalizing based off a very small number of scientists. Are you trying to sabotage yourself here?

    :D ..Oh that was rich. Please, go read back and follow the tangent carefully. You will see that I am right.

    The evidence is right in front of you. Go read back on the thread and see the hole you’ve dug for yourself.

    And yeah I apologize for my inflammatory remarks if they hurt your feelings. It’s sad but it’s literally the only way to keep this conversation half interesting because you have demonstrated a number of times that you are incapable of following along and debating rationally, which would mean you are at least providing evidence for your claims instead of just spouting one liners that you then expect me to disprove (or making incredible demands that I watch 5 hours of videos just to have the most basic questions answered). Again, familiarize yourself with the concept of the ‘burden of proof’ to make these exchanges more pleasant in the future.

    Then why can’t you post any evidence? Why do you insist on wasting time by keeping your posts devoid of substance? Even I’ve read criticisms of the Stern Report. Although seeing as you clearly think you know better than Nicholas Stern (a real economist) you should be writing up your own refutation of the report.

    How is that rubbish?
     
  13. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you have read ‘some of the IPCC reports’ and still cannot show where you found them to be a doomsday scenario? :D :D :D ….What a joke.

    Oh really? You said:

    “So the whole idea of saving the Earth through the implementation of the carbon tax / ETS is to get people to close that extra light or tv that might have been left on during the past.”

    Which is so incredibly oversimplified it’s like something a kindergarten teacher would tell her 5 year old student. It really demonstrates your total lack of understanding of everything that has been said over the last couple weeks.

    You are lost again. In my quote you were responding to I was talking about AGW alarmism, not the carbon tax.

    Specifically I pointed out one of your many inconsistencies: “you are now subscribing to alarmism. Why? You just said it was rubbish. You can’t say AGW alarmism is rubbish and then use it to justify your own arguments.”

    I don’t even know what you’re asking if you are wrong about because you make so many conflicting statements it’s hard to actually figure out where you stand.

    How does that make it a scam? That is how the tax works. I’ve explained the logic, how and why to you a few times now. What do I need to repeat?

    Have you? Do you honestly think your conspiracy blog sites are better? :D :D :D Where is your refutation of Wikipedia and it’s references by the way? If they’re rubbish why don’t you ever trash them? Simply saying they are rubbish without providing a refutation just makes you look stupid.

    LOL now you want me to tell you what your own quotes mean? Wow.

    Burden of proof. You made the claim so you need to prove it.

    Take it to Environment and Conservation or the Science section if you want to debate it and please link me to the thread.

    LOL I love the tacit acceptance that you were lying in your other post. If I make an error I will apologize for it because running away when you were caught out is pathetic and is suicidal for your integrity. I also love your overt dishonesty and how you basically ignored my entire post.

    This is a good question and I don't think joining the EU's ETS is a particularly good idea. We can only hope they get it together before we join (if that comes to pass).

    Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. You cannot say “But there has never been any empirical evidence to suggest that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming or a runaway green house efect.” and then say “we can tackle this problem at grass roots level” because it is a mental inconsistency. Is it a problem or is it a bunch of rubbish cooked up in a conspiracy by the UN and 30 despotic scientists in the CRU to establish a world government?

    If it is a problem, then surely you would recognize your own behaviour is a prime reason why we cannot tackle this problem at the grass roots level as some people are very resistant to this change.
     
  14. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lol…YOU are because I never said that.

    YES. Where did you get the idea that every country on Earth was going to have to suddenly start purchasing carbon credits?

    Read the link or refute it. Otherwise admit you are talking crap….And I like how I’m not a reasonable individual because I don’t blindly believe something without seeing evidence first. It actually makes sense that you have such a warped sense of what is reasonable. Without such a demented concept of rationality you wouldn’t be you and our exchanges would be much better.

    I like your deflection of the entire first half of that quote. Although you’ve been on the run for a few pages now so it’s no surprise.

    What videos do you think I’m trying to justify? Why are you still talking about George Bush? Link me to the full speeches or whatever of Bob Brown etc and let’s have a look. But let’s also be rational human beings and not trust brief quotes that are not sufficient enough to let us grasp the full context.

     
  15. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I saw it, its not worth the effort to repond.

    Whats a matter you gobsmacked on this one, sorry gobsmacked.

    The GST money all goes to our government cant say the same for the carbon tax.

    And by the way the carbon is a sort of GST on our energy use you birdbrain, when are you going to wake up....waiting.....................................................

    What do you mean evidence that we will send billions of dollars overseas dude are you getting desperate.

    Earlier on it was reported that Treasury estimated that by 2050 we would have sent $57 billion dollars or tax payer money overseas for the purchase of carbon credits, just google it their are heaps of articles.

    Now every year we will also be giving the United nations 10% of the carbon tax revenue how many billions of dollars does that add up to?

    Get your facts right before opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself.

    How the fark are they going to lower their emissions?

    Please explain in the real world?

    What cleaner coal it still burns Co2 into the atmosphere and dont tell me you actually think they might start using green/clean energy cause it has not been proven to run big cities.

    Face it whether you like it or not fossil fuels are thecheapest source of energy for the whole world.

    Well maybe not anymore since this privelage is being / HAS BEEN taken away from us.

    Easy lep, i estimate to polute x amount per annum, i purchase x amount of carbon credits for that year to ofset all my estimated pollution, on paper i manage to offset all my pollution for that year through the purchase of the carbon credits.

    Production goes up in the middle of that year i generate more pollution to the tune of x/2 over and above my original x.

    So for that year i have polluted x+x/2 = 1-1/2x for that year

    I purchased carbon credits that amounted to x pollution.

    On paper it looks like i polluted x/2 for that year, halving my anual pollution.

    In reality i sent up 1.5 times my original x amount.

    Thats carbon credits for ya they will clean up manmade pollution as surely as bankers will clean up our environment when they donate $50 billion dollars to climate funds for the $2 trillion dollar a year world ETS.

    We are going around the same block again, and i have repeated told you that private corporations will run the existing generators to the ground before they outlay any new capital if they ever do, i recon they will call on the government and the tax payer for such a cost and they will never ever spend any money on clean energy.

    That is the way of it, so wake up and smell the air its full of CO2. :)

    Always has been always will be, unless you want usto starve to death, in order that we may reduce manmade CO2 the whole 3% in the whole pie while the ecosystems throw up the other 97%.

    Ever asked yourself that if the ecosystems are throwing up 97% of the Co2 in our atmosphere why we should be concerned about the 3% manmade Co2.

    "There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax". dumbanddumber

    Mate you are getting desperate! is this pig on Gillard's payroll.

    Not rocket science just hve to add the pieces together.
     
  16. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here we go round the mulberry bush,
    The mulberry bush,
    The mulberry bush.
    Here we go round the mulberry bush
    So early in the morning.

    If you haven't got any new angles dont bother posting.



     
  17. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Perhaps Treasury modelling will help settle this one
    http://www.countercurrents.org/polya180711.htm
     
  18. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh please, you are just running from questions you can’t answer instead of manning up and admitting it. You are wasting my time.

    And you need to start reading my posts as you are taking us in circles. I conceded that the GST and carbon tax have fundamental differences and could not be compared in the context I was using. Why then are you still bringing it up in every post?

    Again, READ THE POST. Don’t cut off halfway into the first sentence and jump up screaming, ‘AHA!’ It makes you look stupid. Here, I will post it again for you. This time disregard your overwhelming confirmation bias and read the whole thing.

    “Evidence that we will send out billions of Australian dollars to overseas instituitions that ‘have no interest in curbing greenhouse gases they will be worried about farming carbon credits and the health of the carbon credit market.’”

    What institutions? How do we know they have absolutely no interest in curbing their emissions? Where is your list of what institutions the GCF is supporting?

    On top of those very basic and crucial questions… On what grounds do you doubt these statements: http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_su...items/5869.php

    "The GCF will support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties....?

    And…

    "The assets of the GCF will be administered by a trustee only for the purpose of, and in accordance with, the relevant decisions of the GCF Board."”


    Yeah I know we are sending money overseas although we were discussing the GCF not the 57 billion (which I don't particularly agree with). Read the rest of the question next time.

    Got your shoes on? Prepare to get schooled, boy.

    http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresi... final/oliver paper - electricity section.pdf

    “Using fossil fuels is likely to remain the dominant means of producing electricity in 2030 and
    even 2050, partly because power stations have long lives. There are two main ways of reducing CO2
    emissions from fossil-fuelled power plants. These are carbon capture and storage (CCS), which can
    produce near-zero CO2 emissions, and increases in plant efficiency, which can give rise to
    significant reductions in CO2 emissions and to reduced costs.
    If a typical UK coal-fired plant
    was replaced by today’s best available technology, it would lead to reductions of around 25% in
    emissions of CO2 per MWh of electricity produced. Future technologies are targeting even larger
    reductions in emissions, as well as providing a route, with CCS, to zero emissions. These two routes are
    linked and they are both essential activities on the pathway to zero emissions. This paper focuses on the
    second route and also covers an additional third route for reducing emissions, the use of biomass.
    ”


    http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=426556&section=1.3.3

    “Page 5 of the report considers carbon abatement technologies (CATs) in the section headed ‘What are CATs and what are their deployment prospects?’ and identifies three CATs that might be deployed:
    • higher efficiency conversion processes
    • fuel switching to lower carbon alternatives
    • CO2 capture and storage (CCS).”


    http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/presentations/EPGA-Hershey10-17-02.pdf

    Etc etc etc. Ironically, you are the one who needs to get the facts right.

    What do you mean face it? Where did I say they weren’t?

    It’s going to happen sooner or later. Best start getting used to it. Also, stop talking (*)(*)(*)(*)e. Nobody is taking the privilege away from us. Do you need me to explain how the carbon tax works again?

    Can you provide some sort of link that lucidly explains this loophole? How does this happen in a cap and trade system (that isn't corrupt)? It is very intriguing if you are right but your integrity/credibility is non-existent (and I’m bad at math) so I really need links from you as I could find nothing to support your assertion and this shouldn't be my job anyway as it is your claim and so your burden of proof. It doesn’t seem right that in a system that isn’t corrupt they can buy credits and then pollute much more than the amount of credits they purchased and not have to pay a cent more or have anybody monitoring their emissions to note it down.

    What? I literally just said: Especially when the current generators run their useful course and need to be replaced, which you have been told at least three times already. What don’t you understand about that?

    Run their useful course = run to the ground.

    ‘If they ever do’ and ‘I recon’ are also not real arguments. Have you got an argument or just unsubstantiated opinion?

    I’m desperate because I easily found a website with real experts that disagreed with your opinion, thus giving you a firm spanking? Yeah, right :D

    Do you have a refutation or are you just going to make ad hominem attacks and run away?
     
  19. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ironically if you could provide evidence for your claims then we would actually be able to progress. Refusal to provide evidence for your claims just makes for a whole bunch of fail.

    Ah, good to see you wisely took the least embarrassing route and ran away from my posts (all 3 of them) instead of actually trying to respond and claw your way out of the hole you’re in :D

    Next time come prepared or not at all. Save me time and yourself the humiliation.
     
  20. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not running from anything its you that has left several questions unanswered?

    You seem to change the tune to suit yourself all the time.

    Get this through your head we will be sending out billions of dollars to overseas instituitions.

    All estimated $57 billion dollars worth, i bet Al Gore's company along with many others will be very conviently putting up their hand to sell us carbon credits.

    Your beloved GFC will recieve 10% of the carbon tax revenue from Australia and 10% from other nations, in the first year the GFC will raise $100 billion dollars and is set to increase every year after that.

    Now stop writting willy nilly and absorb these facts into your brain.

    WE WILL BE SENDING OUT BILLIONS OF AUSTRALIAN TAX PAYER DOLLARS TO OVESEAS INSTITUITIONS.

    OOHHH so now you know how come you didn't know above in your last paragraph.

    What dont you agree with the figure treasury has estimated?

    To tell you the truth i dont particulary agre with it either i recon it will be more than $57 billion.


    Your really a donkey's arse sometimes haven't i been saying that the only way to clean up our act is at grass root levels like that paper is suggesting, by cleaner fuel at the front end and the latest technology at the back end capturing CO2 and other emissions?

    What is your point i have never been against these types of actions, and i say that this is real world action not some ponzy market scheme that gives results on paper while in the real world its the opposite.

    So now they are the cheapest are they ok i'll remember that.

    Weren't you going on about a carton of milk being cheaper when its been produced by clean/green energy source rather than fossil fuels?

    Weren't you heralding green energy as being cheaper some time back.

    Its happening and when it fails i'll be p!ssing down your back telling you so.

    Can you provide some sort of link that lucidly explains this loophole? How does this happen in a cap and trade system (that isn't corrupt)? It is very intriguing if you are right but your integrity/credibility is non-existent (and I’m bad at math) so I really need links from you as I could find nothing to support your assertion and this shouldn't be my job anyway as it is your claim and so your burden of proof. It doesn’t seem right that in a system that isn’t corrupt they can buy credits and then pollute much more than the amount of credits they purchased and not have to pay a cent more or have anybody monitoring their emissions to note it down.

    EERRRHHHH first of all you have to understand how the carbon tax ETS works, once you have your mind around the intricacies of the policy you can paint the picture.

    Its not rocket science.


    OOOHHH well then please show me one example just one example where our utilities have been upgraded ever since they were sold to the private sector?

    Again its not rocket science if you know what the bottom line of a corporation is these days.


    You mean experts hired by these people right!


    [video=youtube;g_KVBwKU7B8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_KVBwKU7B8[/video]
     
  21. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are the one embarrassing and humiliating yourself not I.

    You continually try to distort what i have said and then argue the point for ever.

    Its getting alittle tiring not to mention time wasting.
     
  22. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh please, you need only to read the thread again to see evidence of your dishonesty and abysmal performance. What questions did I leave unanswered? Why are you still refusing to answer my questions? Are you going to give a reason or just continue to run away like a coward?

    LOL. How on earth am I changing my tune when I posted the EXACT SAME RESPONSE literally word for word? Your dishonesty and cowardice is truly astounding.

    Please show where I said we weren't sending billions overseas. Otherwise kindly admit you are talking garbage and still running from my questions. Here, I'll repeat them AGAIN for you. If you could just answer the questions we wouldn't be going in circles. Get that through your head.

    For the THIRD time, and if you can't answer the questions then SAY SO.

    “Evidence that we will send out billions of Australian dollars to overseas instituitions that ‘have no interest in curbing greenhouse gases they will be worried about farming carbon credits and the health of the carbon credit market.’”

    What institutions? How do we know they have absolutely no interest in curbing their emissions? Where is your list of what institutions the GCF is supporting?

    On top of those very basic and crucial questions… On what grounds do you doubt these statements: http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_su...items/5869.php

    "The GCF will support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties....?

    And…

    "The assets of the GCF will be administered by a trustee only for the purpose of, and in accordance with, the relevant decisions of the GCF Board."”



    Huh? We were discussing the GCF so of course I know we are sending money overseas. Don't let your anger blind you. Try to remain calm.

    LOL man you really are dumb. I was responding to your comment: "How the fark are they going to lower their emissions?

    Please explain in the real world?"


    Again I have demonstrated how you know absolutely nothing about the subjects you try to discuss.

    So you admit you were lying in your last post? Good.

    ..... Wow, you really didn't understand a word I said to you. Obviously fossil fuel is the cheapest source of energy at the moment and obviously renewable energy has potential to be the cheapest in the future. Yes, a carton of milk that is created with low emissions would be cheaper under a carbon tax than milk that used a lot of emissions because the one that uses a lot of emissions got taxed more and so had to raise their price more. Only a moron would've gone from that to somehow thinking I said 'green energy is cheaper than fossil fuel'.

    So you cannot provide even one link that lucidly explains this and again I'm supposed to just blindly follow your word? Again it seems you were talking rubbish. When will you learn?

    Yeah, this isn't an argument either. The incentive is there to upgrade their generators because now they can SAVE MONEY by doing it. This is a fact.

    Uhh, none of those quotes showed those experts to be hired by the government. Honestly, these ad hominem attacks just make you look pathetic. If you are going to say they were paid to say those things then provide evidence because otherwise it just looks like you thought "Oh, a bunch of economists disagree with my unsubstantiated opinion, therefore they must be government pawns." which is utterly retarded.
     
  23. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not at all. I'm not the one running away from questions I can't answer. Cowardice is embarrassing. Also, if you actually read my responses you would see that I use direct quotes. If I'm distorting what you said then I apologize as that has never been my intention. If anything it is probably because your spelling and grammar is so incredibly bad and you often contradict yourself of show mental inconsistencies which makes it much harder to try and understand your argument....Also, an argument is meaningless unless you can provide actual evidence which you have failed to do countless times.
     
  24. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Game over.................................................
     
  25. The Lepper

    The Lepper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2011
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Admitting defeat. I admire that.
     

Share This Page