+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 82

Thread: Gillard's Carbon Tax a futile achievment

  1. Default Gillard's Carbon Tax a futile achievment

    Listening to Julia Gillard over the weekend trying to tell us all how much she has achieved while she has been PM especially when it comes to carbon pricing really made me sick.

    She sees carbon pricing as an achievement when 80% of Australians see it as a tax rip of that will send billions of Australian tax payer’s money overseas.

    These politicians are still following the IPCC model which has been shown to be false, so how can they still be following it, especially when over thirty thousand scientists who don’t work for the IPCC have come out and against the IPCC findings.

    The fact that she sees this as probably her greatest achievement in getting the pricing carbon mechanism through parliament means that she will just not be told that her supposed “the science is in” is actually wrong, I think this alone will be her greatest down fall at the next election.

    Would it be too embarrassing for her to come out and say that the majority of scientists who don’t work for the IPCC don’t actually agree with the model the UN’s IPCC is presenting?

    If she were to come out and say that we will reassess the information we have been given wouldn’t this give her much needed credit from the Australian public, instead of blindingly leading us into financial slavery, is she too far down the road to make a U-turn?

    I recon it’s never too late and admitting making a mistake certainly shows she is human rather than trying to push a tax on the Australian public that most Australians don’t want.

    Ok we’ve done this a thousand times before but here it is again.

    95% of global warming is caused by the water vapor in our atmosphere.

    The total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039%

    From that total amount or CO2 being 0.039% manmade contributions are 3%,

    That’s 3% of 0.039 = 0.00117

    From that 0.00117 Australia’s contribution is 1.5% = 0.00001755.

    In other words our contribution is negligible compared to the rest of the world, yet Gillard will impose the most expensive carbon tax of any other country on the planet at $23/tonne because we contribute a whopping 1.5% of all manmade CO2 that’s 0.00001755.

    She has also said that this is the starting price and its set increase 2.5% above inflation so that’s inflation plus 2.5%, now that doesn’t sound as though it’s capped to me.

    Look at the effects it is already having, automotive industries are closing, Aluminum smelters are closing, and imagine all the support industries that keep these going and how many people will be affected. Not to mention what it will do to our mining sector in the near future.

    When Julia told us that the cost will be passed on to consumers she wasn’t kidding, everything will go up from clothes to food to energy you name it, what doesn’t use energy along the way somewhere.

    Now this PM Julia Gillard is a monumental liar and imo can’t be trusted.

    She said that every dollar raised from the carbon tax will go back to Australian Industry and Australian families, she forgot to mention that 10% of the revenue raised from the carbon tax will be given to the United Nation Environmental fund.

    The carbon tax is set to yield approximately 9 billion dollars a year therefore Gillard and Bob Brown are very comfortable in handing over $900 million dollars from the Australian tax payer to the UN every year.

    Now wait on a minute here, is that money her daddy’s money or is it from her own fortune or estate for her and Bob to hand it over to the UN.

    That’s nearly $3 billion dollars in three years.

    That money should be going back into the Australian economy thank you very much.

    I don’t know about you guys but that sounds like treason to me, Swan, Gillard and Brown are traitors to this nation and they have sold us into financial slavery.

    As long as Gillard claims carbon pricing as an achievement this government is headed for the toilet at the next election.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBx_WaIE6o4"]Every Australian Should Watch This - YouTube[/ame]
    Last edited by dumbanddumber; Feb 26 2012 at 02:34 AM.
    There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax. dumbanddumber

    "The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy." Julia Gillard

    "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price." Ross Garnaut

    "A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions" Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong

  2. Prosper.com, finance, financial, investing, lending, borrowing, banking, credit card, payday, borrowers, lenders, debt consolidation, Prosper, investment, personal loans, personal loan, investors, investment opportunities, debt consolidation

  3. #2
    australia au victoria
    Location: Somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts: 2,683

    Default

    This was a challenge from HER OWN PARTY not from the opposition. Kevin Rudd took the ETS to the 2007 election but failed to get it through parliament when he was PM. Gillard did get it through. Hence this is an achievement for Gillard over Rudd. If successfully implementing ALP policy is not an achievement for the ALP leader, then what exactly is?

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    This was a challenge from HER OWN PARTY not from the opposition. Kevin Rudd took the ETS to the 2007 election but failed to get it through parliament when he was PM. Gillard did get it through. Hence this is an achievement for Gillard over Rudd. If successfully implementing ALP policy is not an achievement for the ALP leader, then what exactly is?
    Yes ziggy

    Rudd did say he was in favour of an ETS, but when he got back from one of those meetings he said that even though he was in favour of it,

    "NOW IS NOT THE RIGHT TIME FOR AUSTRALIA"

    And poof he was gone and Gillard was in.

    Now ziggy i'm all for cleaning the environment and our pollution but i dont buy into this CO2 crap we are being feed, CO2 has nothing to do with warming the planet, if you want to look at warming the planet take a look at the water vapour and how that behaves in warming our planet.

    The other thing that gets to me with all you guys who support the carbon tax blindly is.

    How on Earth can farming carbon credits and derivatives on the stock exchange contribute to cleaning up our pollution, dude its one big casino.

    How can you guys be fooled into believing this will work!

    But the biggest joke of all is how Gillard thinks its an achievement when 80% of Australians KNOW its a rip of.

    To me she must be working for the United nations, Bankers and Wall Street to implement such ridiculous legislation knowing too well its political suicide to do so.

    But once its in it will be hard getting it out, unless we all protest rather ferocioucly.

    The biggest joke is she thinks its a great achievment but this act alone has made her one of the most hated PMs i can remember.

    Actually the worst PM of all time.

    Nothing hard about it Julia just bad treasoness policy.
    Last edited by dumbanddumber; Feb 26 2012 at 11:34 PM.
    There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax. dumbanddumber

    "The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy." Julia Gillard

    "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price." Ross Garnaut

    "A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions" Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dumbanddumber View Post

    These politicians are still following the IPCC model which has been shown to be false, so how can they still be following it, especially when over thirty thousand scientists who donít work for the IPCC have come out and against the IPCC findings.
    How can you refer to such propaganda and still pretend that it matters?

    http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-glob...ked-propaganda

    The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise for those who have signed the petition.

    In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

    Atmospheric Science (113)

    Climatology (39)

    Meteorology (341)

    Astronomy (59)

    Astrophysics (26)

    So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
    Would it be too embarrassing for her to come out and say that the majority of scientists who donít work for the IPCC donít actually agree with the model the UNís IPCC is presenting?
    On the contrary, to come out and agree with such an absurd petition would be a suicidal blow.

  6. Default

    Taken from here
    http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

    Qualifications of Signers

    Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

    The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

    All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

    The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

    Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

    1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

    4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

    6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

    7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

    The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

    Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

    1. Atmosphere (579)

    I) Atmospheric Science (112)
    II) Climatology (39)
    III) Meteorology (343)
    IV) Astronomy (59)
    V) Astrophysics (26)


    2. Earth (2,240)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,684)
    IV) Geophysics (341)
    V) Geoscience (36)
    VI) Hydrology (22)


    3. Environment (986)

    I) Environmental Engineering (487)
    II) Environmental Science (253)
    III) Forestry (163)
    IV) Oceanography (83)


    Computers & Math (935)

    1. Computer Science (242)

    2. Math (693)

    I) Mathematics (581)
    II) Statistics (112)


    Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

    1. Physics (5,225)

    I) Physics (2,365)
    II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
    III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)


    2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

    Chemistry (4,822)

    1. Chemistry (3,129)

    2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

    Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

    1. Biochemistry (744)

    I) Biochemistry (676)
    II) Biophysics (6


    2. Biology (1,43

    I) Biology (1,049)
    II) Ecology (76)
    III) Entomology (59)
    IV) Zoology (149)
    V) Animal Science (105)


    3. Agriculture (783)

    I) Agricultural Science (296)
    II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
    III) Plant Science (292)
    IV) Food Science (81)


    Medicine (3,046)

    1. Medical Science (719)

    2. Medicine (2,327)

    General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

    1. General Engineering (9,833)

    I) Engineering (7,280)
    II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
    III) Metallurgy (384)


    2. General Science (269)
    There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax. dumbanddumber

    "The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy." Julia Gillard

    "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price." Ross Garnaut

    "A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions" Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong

  7. Default

    Just exactly who are the IPCC?

    Is it Al Gore's nobel peace prize crap that is being implemented?

    FFS he is a politician!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53.

    Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.[3]

    It is chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri.

    Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with summaries for policy makers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments.

    Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[4]

    The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.

    A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[3] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change.

    Implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol.

    The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[5] Membership of the IPCC is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.

    [6] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[7] The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared, in two equal parts, between the IPCC and Al Gore.
    Just exactly what was it that Al Gore did to earn the noble peace prize?

    I thought you had to be a scientist who had made a historical new find or something along those lines.

    Not a politician going around spreading bullsh!t about a topic he has no grasp of.

    Watch this you might learn something
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBx_WaIE6o4"]Every Australian Should Watch This - YouTube[/ame]
    Last edited by dumbanddumber; Feb 27 2012 at 12:53 AM.
    There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax. dumbanddumber

    "The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy." Julia Gillard

    "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price." Ross Garnaut

    "A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions" Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong

  8. Default

    By introducing a cost on carbon is most certainly an achievement by PM Gillard , much like the achievement Ronald Biggs felt right after The Great Robbery.
    Last edited by Metal_Jockets; Feb 27 2012 at 01:53 AM.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dumbanddumber View Post
    Taken from here
    http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

    Qualifications of Signers

    Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

    The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

    All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

    The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

    Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

    1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

    4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

    6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

    7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

    The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

    Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

    1. Atmosphere (579)

    I) Atmospheric Science (112)
    II) Climatology (39)
    III) Meteorology (343)
    IV) Astronomy (59)
    V) Astrophysics (26)


    2. Earth (2,240)

    I) Earth Science (94)
    II) Geochemistry (63)
    III) Geology (1,684)
    IV) Geophysics (341)
    V) Geoscience (36)
    VI) Hydrology (22)


    3. Environment (986)

    I) Environmental Engineering (487)
    II) Environmental Science (253)
    III) Forestry (163)
    IV) Oceanography (83)


    Computers & Math (935)

    1. Computer Science (242)

    2. Math (693)

    I) Mathematics (581)
    II) Statistics (112)


    Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

    1. Physics (5,225)

    I) Physics (2,365)
    II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
    III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)


    2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

    Chemistry (4,822)

    1. Chemistry (3,129)

    2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

    Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

    1. Biochemistry (744)

    I) Biochemistry (676)
    II) Biophysics (6


    2. Biology (1,43

    I) Biology (1,049)
    II) Ecology (76)
    III) Entomology (59)
    IV) Zoology (149)
    V) Animal Science (105)


    3. Agriculture (783)

    I) Agricultural Science (296)
    II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
    III) Plant Science (292)
    IV) Food Science (81)


    Medicine (3,046)

    1. Medical Science (719)

    2. Medicine (2,327)

    General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

    1. General Engineering (9,833)

    I) Engineering (7,280)
    II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
    III) Metallurgy (384)


    2. General Science (269)
    My point exactly.

    Further proof of this petitions complete lack of integrity:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
    “ Several environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.

    Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake", he said.[21]



    In 2001, Scientific American reported:
    “ Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22] ”


    In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
    “ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]
    Also see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...regon_Petition

    That has a thorough analysis of the reality of this petition.
    Last edited by The Lepper; Feb 27 2012 at 02:12 AM.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Lepper View Post
    My point exactly.

    Further proof of this petitions complete lack of integrity:
    Well we have phd's masters and what not in all sciences computer modelling chemistry etc etc.

    Quite an elite group of people, well educated and naturally concerned about the wool being pulled over the eyes of the world.

    Better than a politician with a sales pitch dont you recon who isn't qualified to present anything on the subject, but is gearing up to make a good superannuation fund for himself.

    Yeah my point exactly?!
    There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than the carbon tax. dumbanddumber

    "The cost, paid by big polluters, will be passed through to the prices of the goods you buy." Julia Gillard

    "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of the carbon price." Ross Garnaut

    "A carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions" Former Labor Climate Change Minister Penny Wong

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dumbanddumber View Post
    Well we have phd's masters and what not in all sciences computer modelling chemistry etc etc.

    Quite an elite group of people, well educated and naturally concerned about the wool being pulled over the eyes of the world.

    Better than a politician with a sales pitch dont you recon who isn't qualified to present anything on the subject, but is gearing up to make a good superannuation fund for himself.

    Yeah my point exactly?!
    Did you even read my post?

    Ignoring the fake names, scientists who now reject the petition, the repeated names, the deceased, the corporate business names, the scientists who don't even remember any such petition, the signatures that are first names only and the scientists who 'signed' the petition based on an 'informal evaluation', lets look at the very basis for this list:

    In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth", by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

    Robinson's paper claimed to show that pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is actually a good thing. "As atmospheric CO2 increases," it stated, "plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally." As a result, Robinson concluded, industrial activities can be counted on to encourage greater species biodiversity and a greener planet.

    In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

    None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon.
    Claiming this petition holds any weight is intellectually dishonest.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks