Emissions Trading Scheme (Tax)

[Buf-Phoon]

NSW Labor is an absolute farce beggars belief.

Now lets have a look a some of Krudds ill thought out strokes of genius and promises

1/ Insulation Batts - dodgey operators, causing car accidents , fires,dumping of used batts everywhere , ripping

off the tax payer cost $2.9B - $3.9B

2/ Promised to fix the health system

3/ Laptops for all the kiddies to watch porn , play games , download music etc instead of doing school work

4/ the ETS

5/ Border protection ( another boat has rocked up today )

I could go on and on and on

[tab]

You obviously haven't seen NSW labour then.

I must admit I dont pay close attention to state politics in other states, but can recall hearing similar last time you guys had an election? Yet look what happened

Last time I was down in the land of the freaks and watching the local news it was a bit of an eye-opener though. Definite oxygen thieves that mob. Got me stuffed why Buffy votes for them to be honest!

[Buf-Phoon]

looks like I'll be voting for Anna Thighs instead

Handsome woman that

[xtremerus]

I notice that you have a photo of her as your avatar

[BFHOON]

we now have our 4th nsw labor leader in 4 years.

this is getting beyond a joke. 18 months to go for nsw labor.

[xr_velocity]

The ETS is a cost of living increase, people's wages increase accordingly to compensate for this. Therefore rthe cost to produce goods and services increases. It's called inflation which leads to 17% interest rates just like in the Labour governed 80s. Goods and services will be produced overseas where there are no issues with sh*tting on street corners.

The world will not participate in trading carbon, even if they did the cost of carbon will be made to sky rocket so that the stock markets will make a fortune off it and inevitably invest nothing back into the green world. It is yet another way to make money, that is all.

If you want to get serious about cleaning up the world, you can start in your own backyard quite easily. Switch your power to wind energy through your electricity provider, turn your TV off at the switch, it's not hard to do. So many little things that could reduce your wastage by say 10%. That is a big number when you think about 24 million people doing it. Industry should be encouraged to become greener by way of rewards for becoming green in ways of tax concessions or whatever. Your green energy bill cost difference over normal coal power could be tax deductible.

So many things could be done, but politicians at the end of the day just want more money through way of taxes.

F^%$ YOU KRUDD

[our06t]

Interesting write up in the paper today , good to see some of the evidence from the side of common sense

AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today.

We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

The cores tell the story that this period is only a short interlude during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back more than 2 million years.

Together with 50 other scientists and technicians, I am aboard the drilling ship Joides Resolution. JR, as it is affectionately known, is the workhorse of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international program that is to environmental science what NASA is to space science.

JR's drilling crew can retrieve cores up to 1km or more below the seabed and we are drilling today about 80km east of South Island in New Zealand. The ancient muds and sands that make up the sediment layers we pass through are the most important record of ancient climate that scientists possess. And they tell the tale that climate always changes.

Some core alterations are ruled by changes in the Earth's orbit at periods of 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, others by fluctuations in solar output and others display oceanographic and climate shifts caused by . . . we know not what.

Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, oft-times for reasons we do not fully understand.

Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

Yet the public has been misinformed to believe that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that postdates its supposed effect?

The now numerous special interest groups who continue to lobby for unnecessary and economically harmful carbon dioxide taxation need to appreciate that nature, not the world's governments, will determine future climate. Second, that there is no scientific evidence that warmings greater than the much-talked about 2C will cause environmental catastrophe; rather, this number is one plucked out of the air for reasons of political targetry and control. And, third, that to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450ppm, also a widely touted figure, makes no sense, because past carbon dioxide levels attained more than 10 times this without known adverse environmental effects, while greening the planet.

Politically popular though it may be, the belief that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary driver of average planetary temperature is junk science. For instance, Earth experienced an ice age about 450 million years ago at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been 15 times the pre-industrial level.

It is simply science fiction to believe that 450ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide and 2C of warming are magic numbers that somehow mark a "tipping point"in Earth's climate system. Rather, they are politically contrived targets, erected for the purpose of stampeding scientifically innocent citizens into a gaping corral of carbon dioxide taxation.

The simplest explanation for the mild warming that occurred in the late 20th century is that it was part of Earth's ever-changing pattern of natural climate change and the job of scientists is to seek evidence to test that interpretation. They have and literally thousands of scientific papers to date have described climate evidence that is consistent with natural change.

Despite all the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the expenditure of about $100 billion of research money since 1990, no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change.

Melting glaciers (but, in some places, advancing), rising sea levels (but, in some places, falling), increasing numbers of storms (actually, currently at a 30-year low), increasing numbers of polar bears and changes in migratory patterns of birds may very well all have happened or be happening. But these facts say nothing about a human causality for such changes.

It is not for the independent climate scientists (the so-called "climate sceptics") to disprove that dangerous human-caused warming is happening. Rather, it is for the alarmist scientists of the IPCC and CSIRO to show that the simple idea of natural climate change can be invalidated. This they have failed to do.

Professor Bob Carter, currently aboard a research ship near New Zealand, is a research professor at Queensland's James Cook University - where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999 - and the University of Adelaide

[our06t]

Me thinks someone in the media world knows more than us ,If the papers are starting to support the oppositions views I would think this means they expect them to be in power before too long . May be bye bye Kevie sooner than we think

[aiboart]

Earth science people have known about this for decades. The entire global warming frenzy is a mad fashion, for people who do not know the difference between opinion and hard data.

Typically it finds its greatest support in the people who fancy themselves as highly intelligent based on their wholesale subscription to opinion systems, religions, and religions that masquerade as science, sociology is one example.

It is still a mystery how people of the humanities who generally parade their profound technological ignorance as a badge of honor and let's face it, intellectual superiority, have latched on to support the delusion that global warming is new and man made and greated by the greed of the West.

The fact is that these same people cannot fathom the maths, the computer models, the difference between data and opinion etc. They boast that they do not know how a mobile phone works or how a car works, yet, they have the audacity to claim absolutely to know how a system as staggeringly complex as the earth operates. Oh please!

Science begins when opinion ends and experiment and hard data over ride theory. Scientific opinion is an oxymoron.

The chattering classes love the whole global warming rubbish because it is about belief and fashion. They 'believe' in global warming which in the humanities world is all that is required, really. In the real world however the earth or any other really system could not give a stuff about what you believe, or if your computer game, cough, model, runs on an Apple Mac.

In general the technocracy as a group, have not subscribed for a number of reasons,

1 They know the difference between data, experiment and opinion.

2 They innately appreciate scale, numbers, causality, linear and non linear systems. (they know how big and significant stuff is)

3 They know about historical planetary data.

Regards,

aa

Edited 08/12/09 08:47 PM by aiboart

[BFHOON]

a climate change expert was on the radio the other day saying that the earth heats up and cools in cycles and an ice age is more likely to occur than the constant warming that has been prodicted.

also the sun is expanding at a constant rate and in 35 million years the earth wont even exist as the sun will swallow up each planet one by one as it destroys its self.

the other factor is the orbit of mercury and the 11 year cycles of solar maximum and solar minimum where the sun expands and contracts regulating its size by buring up its own fuel and replenishig its fuel source by regulating its own inner temperature.