Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading

[1965]

You missed the fine print as per usual

Just re-read the article and I am not sure what you mean.

[dwaino]

As long as Tony and his outdated cabinet have:

Genesis 8:22

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Then there is nothing to be worried about. Remember the Earth has been around a staggering 6,000 years and will be around at least another 6,000. Don't be fooled by Satan's scientists.

[Judge Roughneck]

The Government has also announced it wants to scale back the growth of electricity generated from renewable sources.

"Australian Government announces it will create a local market for it's largest export, coal, as the rest of the world turns it's back on the once favoured highly poluting energy source."
perma-link

http://abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/government-wants-rooftop-solar-program-to-continue/5833664

[mightytiges]

The Government has also announced it wants to scale back the growth of electricity generated from renewable sources.

"Australian Government announces it will create a local market for it's largest export, coal, as the rest of the world turns it's back on the once favoured highly poluting energy source."
perma-link

http://abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/government-wants-rooftop-solar-program-to-continue/5833664

This is dumb and short-sighted enough on its own but it's really dumb if China doesn't reverse its new import tariff on Australian coal.

[dwaino]

All she had to do was ask Tony. Who needs peer reviewed journals when Tony is the expert on everything from science to women?

Like many people, I used to think the scientific community was divided about climate change. Then in 2004, as part of a book I was doing on oceanography, I did a search of 1,000 articles published in peer-reviewed scientific literature in the previous 10 years.

I asked how many showed evidence that disagreed with the statement made in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report: “Most of the observed warming over the past 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” I found that none did. Zero.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/science/naomi-oreskes-imagines-the-future-history-of-climate-change.html?_r=2&referrer=

[Judge Roughneck]

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar.html

[one-eyed]

IPCC report warns greenhouse gas levels at highest point in 800,000 years, identifies fossil fuels as cause of recent increases.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-02/ipcc-say-greenhouse-levels-highest-point-in-thousands-of-years/5861314

[dwaino]

IPCC report warns greenhouse gas levels at highest point in 800,000 years, identifies fossil fuels as cause of recent increases.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-02/ipcc-say-greenhouse-levels-highest-point-in-thousands-of-years/5861314

Just read through bits of the report attached to the article. By bits I mean I read 3 or 4 pages at a time then skipped a few and so on, so I'll have to go through the rest when it isn't 2:30am. It really is quite a damning report.

[Judge Roughneck]

Wouldn't be trusting those lefty ABCpinkos

Tong ashould remove all funding

[Diocletian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE

[1965]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE

He is absolutely correct.

What we need to do is to decrease the population dramatically.

How about another world war? The crisis in Syria and Iraq might provide the solution.

Maybe a modern day plague? Ebola in West Africa fits the bill.

Or maybe even a massive climatic change that could wipe out half the world's population.

All three seem reasonable solutions.

 

[dwaino]

Doug Stanhope rules. He's pretty right though. In the past the Earth has used natural mechanisms to regulate the temperature. With deforestation due to overpopulation for resources, living space, crops and livestock we're removing one of these components.

[Judge Roughneck]

Lol

It's th consumer-capitalism dominate paradigm that's the problem. Th last American midterms cost four billion dollars just to run. While at the same time elderly prists are being arrested for feeding the homeless.


Food rights | ActionAid
www.actionaid.org/australia/learn/food-rights
Enough food is produced twice over every year than is needed to feed the world. There's no reason for anyone to go hungry. Hunger hits women and children ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE

He is absolutely correct.

What we need to do is to decrease the population dramatically.

How about another world war? The crisis in Syria and Iraq might provide the solution.

Maybe a modern day plague? Ebola in West Africa fits the bill.

Or maybe even a massive climatic change that could wipe out half the world's population.

All three seem reasonable solutions.

 

Personally, I've always been fond of gas chambers.  Neo-holocaust  . Fr th good of mother earth


If the goal is indeed depopulation. Then the method of global warming is a fairly shyte way of going about it. Unless you are an oil company. In regards to efficiency, would a nuclear holocaust, world war or super aids type scenario not be beneficial?


There are some interesting conspiarcy theory in regards to this topic
; underground bases, super rich etc

[Judge Roughneck]

The wealth of the top 0.1% is about to overtake the bottom 90%, just like it was before 1929. Move on citizen, nothing to see here... (economist.com)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/somearemoreequalthanothers

not enough money!
not enough land!
not enough food!

better kill off 5 billion and continue to invest in british petrolum 

[1965]

How silly does Abbott look now.

What an absolute stuffwit.

Labor, Greens seize on US-China climate deal to attack Coalition policy on eve of G20

Labor and the Greens have seized on a historic climate change deal struck by the US and China to launch a blistering attack on the Abbott government's climate policy, arguing Australia is going backwards in tackling climate change, accused Prime Minister Tony Abbott of holding "flat earth views" and urging greater emissions reductions.

The deal comes on the eve of the G20 summit in Brisbane, which both US President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping will attend, and significantly ratchets up pressure on Mr Abbott, who has been reluctant to even discuss climate change at the economic summit. Climate change is conspicuously absent from major items on the agenda at the summit.

The US and Chinese presidents announced on Wednesday the US would target much deeper emissions cuts of 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025, while China to cap its emissions growth by 2030, or sooner if possible - a commitment with potentially significant implications for Australian exports of coal to China.

It also set an ambitious goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 per cent of the country's energy mix by 2030. An equivalent target for Australia to the US pledge would be a 30 per cent reduction in emissions against 2000 levels by 2025.

Earlier this year, Australia scrapped its carbon tax and environmental groups now question whether the Coalition's replacement Direct Action policy can reach the stated target of a five per cent reduction by 2020.

Mr Shorten said on Wednesday the "historic and ambitious" agreement showed global leadership from the US and China.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-greens-seize-on-uschina-climate-deal-to-attack-coalition-policy-on-eve-of-g20-20141112-11l6e1.html#ixzz3IpWS2g00