What really has me rolling on the floor laughing is that none of these guys would understand the workings of the light bulb hanging above their head. No put down there - 99.99% of people (including me) wouldn't because the physics is much more complicated than any of us care or want to know about. They sit underneath that light bulb using computers that are a zillion times more complicated over networks whose workings they couldn't begin to fathom. All created through science.

And there they sit typing "NO! SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK!!". What a laugh!

Doc, when you're magazine can come up with a comprehensive explanation of the workings of a better light bulb, I might read it. Until then it's just toilet paper for the mind.

petermac33 said...

if we had real science instead of vested corporate science then a million Iraqi's

would still be alive and that's a conservative figure.


if we had real science instead of vested corporate science then this potential

worldwide carbon tax would be laughed at.[see article posted by Cisco]



if we had real science instead of vested corporate science those hundreds of

thousands of soldiers who suffer from gulf war syndrome would not be suffering as

war is a racket. [google David Cameron war profiteering]

Statement 1: Answer :real science was telling us that there was no success in uncovering the weapons of mass destruction that had previously thought to exist. Hans Blix and his weapons inspection teams asked for more time to find the weapons but the politics of the situation took hold and the coalition of the willing ( including Howard)decided to prosecute the War. Peter, your view on the influence of science on the Iraq war is completely wrong. Statement 2: answer: You said "If we had real science instead of vested corporate science then this potential worldwide carbon tax would be laughed at" No, REAL SCIENCE is on the side of global warming, the sort of "science" you believe is fakery, half truths and you tube clips, being spruiked by non trained, self appointed experts, some of whom are in the pocket of the corporate world. You are 180 degrees out again. Statement 3: answer: I can't be bothered! Oh and another thing Nexus magazine and uncensored 23 are NOT scientific publications.

worldwide carbon tax would be laughed at.[see article posted by Cisco]

the REAL question here is...

how have carantoc and maxm been able to survive this long without a brain...?

theDoctor said...



the REAL question here is...

how have carantoc and maxm been able to survive this long without a brain...?

No, doc, the real question is how you trolls can type. Do you find it hard to do while standing on your knuckles?

The doc (left) demonstrates his science to maxm (right):

can someone explain to me how carbon tax is actually going to reduce carbon emissions... because i don't see anywhere in the political rhetoric how it will be effective in this regard other than the fact that we apparently "need" it.

the way i see it, the government is taxing businesses, who will in return raise prices for us, the consumer. however to appease the masses the government will then compensate those of us who are affected somehow "tax breaks"? eitherway it seems like a massive circle jerk which will accomplish nothing but employ more middle management bureacracy, generate more inefficiencies and drive inflation to ever greater heights.

and somehow this is meant to reduce carbon emissions?

if they are at all serious, they should just regulate emissions. if you don't meet targets, then you are shut down. carbon tax is just a way for companies to avoid emissions targets by passing on the cost of their polluting to their clients and in the end to us the consumer.

/rant

end of the day, the real problem is that >50% of the population are retarded ****s (starts with c, ends in t, rhymes with runts) with the attention span of a goldfish. our politicians/policy makers are a reflection of that fact.

That is what I'm thinking too Swoosh. How will a carbon tax reduce pollution? If there are no alternatives people will continue to use electricity generated by coal fired power stations and petrol in cars. All it will mean is we have to pay more. So the government will compensate us. Whats the point of that? It will mean we just keep on consuming as much as ever. Net effect on carbon dioxide levels, ZERO.

All it means is more government intruding into our lives and business. More red tape. More data collected. More regulations. Unless you need help off the government the government should leave you alone.

Mobydisc said...

That is what I'm thinking too Swoosh. How will a carbon tax reduce pollution? If there are no alternatives people will continue to use electricity generated by coal fired power stations and petrol in cars. All it will mean is we have to pay more. So the government will compensate us. Whats the point of that? It will mean we just keep on consuming as much as ever. Net effect on carbon dioxide levels, ZERO.

All it means is more government intruding into our lives and business. More red tape. More data collected. More regulations. Unless you need help off the government the government should leave you alone.

Moby,

You're right... if the tax isn't well designed then it'll be pointless and I think we'll need to keep an eye on the government to make sure they get it right. But there are alternative energy sources. Not a lot, but some. For electricity there's wind, f'rinstance. If wind was cheaper than coal then there'd be a swing to wind generation. A tax on coal can make that happen.

By the way, that's exactly the same scenario as happens when coal starts to run out. The price of coal goes up making alternatives relatively cheaper. Only in that scenario, there's no tax and no money to compensate anyone. So we can choose to do nothing but eventually, we'll still go through the pain. If not us then our children.

Anyway let's see what the federal parliamentary ALP and the independents think up. Who knows it may be a good thing to have a new tax.

Has to be said, boobs (.)(.)

Mark _australia said...

doggie said...

Has to be said, boobs (.)(.)

and according the alarmists, with no carbon tax and all the resultant polution, in a few years Doggie will be saying

boobs (.)(.)(.)

Sorry I max out at two (.)(.)

Slightly offtopic/stepping back a bit: Is there anyone here that doubts CO2 levels are increasing and causing global warming?

Back off topic


And back on again
What I'm saying is that everyone has an opinion, but 99.9% of us don't actually know what we are talking about. Myself included. The question is not:

"Do you believe in global warming?", like it's some question of faith (sigh) but:

"Do you think that millions of man hours, billions if you count all the shoulders they have stood on* and billions of data points and tireless analysis and peer review, do you think that that could be wrong?"

And for f's sake don't compare it to the millenium bug like some tosser did at a party the other night. "See, that was rubbish too" he said. "And I remember it being hotter when I was a kid". Very convincing in comparison.

* "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Newton. Meaning that all his work was built on and only possible all the through previous work of others before him. Very modest for a genius.

from deleted article posted by Cisco


Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made


Q1. What % of the air is CO2?
Respondent's Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)
Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don't use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosph...th#Composition



Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?
Respondent's answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that's all.




now if the figures in this article are even half correct,well obviously we are being led again up the garden path.






what is all this crap about 'peer review' and 'experts' and 'holds a qualification

in environmental science or similar.'

i mean WTF! i can think for myself thankyou very much!

the problem we have here is 'trusting the experts' beyond one's own senses.

i don't need no 'expert' or a 'peer review panel' telling me we have a a jet aircraft

crash here, when i see with my own two eyes and basic commonsense that what

the 'expert' and 'peer review panel' is telling me is a crock of sh/t.

(.)(.)

Al Planet said...

I cant see how a carbon tax is much different to a GST. The more carbon guzzling activities you do the more you pay. Building a Mac-mansion or flitting about the place on a jet or heating your backyard swimming pool becomes a lot more expensive. Its relatively easy to return a few dollars to the lowest income earners to compensate them for the extra cost of the tax but generally we live in a country that loves to burn brown coal, even Tassi imports more brown coal power than it exports in Hydro power.

May I ask a question?

If Tassi exports hydro power, how come they need coal? That just seems weired to me. If you can make it, why not use it?