Australian Politics thread [merged]

[Dubstep Dookie]

i think that went over his head, dooks.

More through to the keeper.

[The Big Richo]

sorry tiger my mistake. Your not brainwashed then. 

Just noticed your signature.

If you are going to quote the Bible you need to take out the line numbers.

That way you look a little less silly.

 

'65

9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Geez every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Geez Geez is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

I fail to understand how that can make ME look silly. It's how it's written in bible. I just used copy and paste. 

I think it was the part when you quoted the bible.

[1965]

sorry tiger my mistake. Your not brainwashed then. 

Just noticed your signature.

If you are going to quote the Bible you need to take out the line numbers.

That way you look a little less silly.

 

'65

9 Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Geez every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Geez Geez is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

I fail to understand how that can make ME look silly. It's how it's written in bible. I just used copy and paste. 

I think it was the part when you quoted the bible.

 

[Tigeritis™©®]

Let me get this straight.

My position is this; I don't like ANY tax. I didn't want the GST. I don't want a TAX on carbon dioxide! I think it's crap and just an excuse for more money. 

So ALL you people, except maybe Tiga and Flags, are excited about a TAX?

I can't beleive it. You people are brainwashed. 

Let me ask you this. When you go to your church, do you put money in the collection plate when it comes around?

Let me ask you this. When you go to a Richmond club function, do you put money in the collection plate when it comes around?
What's this got to do with anything we are talking about???? 

I'm not even a member of ANY church or ANY religious organisation. Do you want to know if Ive contributed? Why would you need to know that??? 

Do you REALLY want to make this a religious debate? I don't understand. If you want a theological debate I'll be a happy man.   

Nice analogy re the club, but IMHO my point stands unaddressed.

Happy to have a debate on this, theological, religious and scientific.

Start the thread.

so let me get this right.... You are HAPPY that the government is introducing a tax on CO2?

[tiga]

Let me get this straight.

My position is this; I don't like ANY tax. I didn't want the GST. I don't want a TAX on carbon dioxide! I think it's crap and just an excuse for more money. 

So ALL you people, except maybe Tiga and Flags, are excited about a TAX?

I can't beleive it. You people are brainwashed. 

Let me ask you this. When you go to your church, do you put money in the collection plate when it comes around?

Dooks, to keep you happy I'll dispatch this one to the boundary for 4. Do I put money in the collection plate at church? Not only did I put it in, I also collected it. Why did I do it? Because I knew where it was going and what it was for.
Now here is a question for you. Do you know where the money that you are about to get taxed for non polluting CO2 is going? There hasn't even been any economic modelling on the so called rebates that Princess Fiona has spouted. FACT. So if you know where your Carbon tax money is going then let me hold your hand up and call you Nostradamus. I'm sorry but the Baby is driving the bus on this one. Nobody in the Government has a clue on how this will all pan out. 

Let me clarify my stance on all of this. Do I believe Climate change exists? YES. The climate has been changing on this planet since its creation. Do I believe that Carbon dioxide levels are directly responsible for the warming and cooling of the planet? NO! Carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.
All this Carbon Tax crap is based on one chapter (Chapter 9) in a United Nations IPCC report which was endorsed by only 5 reviewers and it is yet to be proven that they were even scientists. How the Ginger Ninja is spouting 4000 scientists endorsed the UN IPCC report is nothing but pure folly. 

Can anyone here prove to me that 1, the earth is currently warming and 2, that this warming is a direct consequence of increased carbon dioxide levels caused by humans in the earths atmosphere? I won't hold my breath on this one....

If the government tomorrow said we are implementing a Hospital tax to eliminate waiting times and to increase funding to critical medical research, I'd not only happily pay the tax, I'd find out if there was a way to pay more. But to be forced to pay a tax based on flawed science and computer modelling cuts me to the core. This is a cash grab of the highest order and I cringe every time I hear Gillard's "scary bedtime stories". People, there is no boogie man in the closet! (No Ramps not Jim Boogie, he does exist  )     
 

[mightytiges]

I see the BS pseudo-science masquerading as real science is still prevalent amongst those who can't accept or are ignorant the scientific evidence .

MT you would be pretty upset with 500 of the biggest polluters now getting off in this watered down policy that will not do anything to save the planet from global warming that will flood the earth or dry us out like Mars.

All about baby steps tiger101 so whether it's 500 or 1000 companies is irrelevant. It's all about starting the transition of the Australian economy over the next 40+ years to one that will no longer rely heavily on fossil fuels (and the CO2 emissions that come with them) for our energy needs. The world is and will be moving to pricing carbon (South Korea the latest country in 2015) so Australia can't take the economic risk of doing nothing.

[mightytiges]

1 question I want to know. Is when this develops into an ETS how will the government afford to pay for all this compensation.

Basically the same way it will under the fixed price Carbon Tax mechanism. From July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2015 the Government will make available each year a unlimited number of permits (each corresponding to 1 tonne of CO2) at $23 each. The 500 largest companies that emit "carbon pollution" will have to purchase as many permits to cover their emissions each year. The revenue from this goes to the Government which will be distributed (eg: 50% to households on lower-middle incomes as compensation). International trade exposed companies (in Steel for example) will basically get their permits for free. From July 1, 2015 the mechanism switches to a cap and trade ETS whereby the Government caps the number of permits available to a fixed number corresponding to the level of emissions allowed. Most of these permits will be auctioned off by the Government and the companies will have to compete and bid for them given there's only a fixed number of permits. Some companies will be willing to continue to pay for these while others will find reducing their emissions less expensive. Under the ETS companies will also be allowed to trade their permits on market so industries that require more permits can purchase them. Once again trade exposed industries will receive free permits. Over time the cap will be lowered hence the total emissions allowed will be lowered. The plan is to have a 80% reduction in emissions by 2050. As for your question tiger101, the compensation under the ETS will come from part of the revenue generated from the auctioning of the permits (presumanly there'll also be some capital gains tax revenue from those companies who via a trade sell their permits at a profit just like any other security on the market).

[mightytiges]

Let me clarify my stance on all of this. Do I believe Climate change exists? YES. The climate has been changing on this planet since its creation. Do I believe that Carbon dioxide levels are directly responsible for the warming and cooling of the planet? NO! Carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

If the bold part were true tiga then the Earth would still be covered in a frozen layer of ice known as "Snowball Earth". A million years ago approx. it took volcanic eruptions to break through the ice and pump CO2 into the atmosphere. Without any carbon sinks due to the ice the greenhouse effect kicked in big time and eventually melted the ice. Once the rocky and watery Earth underneath (carbon sinks) were exposed the carbon sinks outweighed the sources and CO2 levels fell back down again. As an aside in the process O2 in the atmosphere rose from 1% to current levels of 21% leading to an explosion in macroscopic life.

From the Collins English dictionary:
pollution (n)
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) harmful or poisonous substances introduced into an environment

The CO2 we are talking about is the CO2 produced as a waste product from the burning of fossil fuels to extract energy. This waste product CO2 which has a different carbon isotope ratio (13C/12C) to atmospheric CO2 is freely being pumped into the atmosphere as an addition to the CO2 already up there and has caused CO2 levels to rise from 280ppm to 390ppm in the past 150 years. We are pumping more CO2 (as well as methane (CH4) and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere than the natural carbon sinks can absorb so CO2 levels continue to rise. As it's leading towards a harmful situation on the environment (rising global surface temperatures over time (decades) and towards an extra 2 degree tipping point) then it's called "pollution" by definition.

Can anyone here prove to me that 1, the earth is currently warming and 2, that this warming is a direct consequence of increased carbon dioxide levels caused by humans in the earths atmosphere? I won't hold my breath on this one....

1. It's not a monotonic increase as shown for example in that paper posted by tiger101 just recently where layers of smog (SO2) can have a competing cooling effect that creates a temporary lull in the rise of surface temperature (see graph posted in this thread: post WWII - 1970s and 1999-2008) but the last two data points 2009 and 2010 have gone up again.

2. As mentioned above the ratio of 13C/12C carbon isotopes is different (slightly lower) in fossil fuels (as its made from mostly decayed plant material and plants prefer the lower atomic mass carbon 12 when they photosynthesize). So not only can scientists measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere but they also can measure the change in the isotope ratio in the atmosphere and this ratio has just so happened fallen over the past 150 years as we as humans have continually added CO2 with a lower ratio from the burning of fossil fuels.

The evidence for AGW is not based on modelling btw. It is based on various empirical evidence.

People, there is no boogie man in the closet! (No Ramps not Jim Boogie, he does exist  )    

You mean the coal industry and the economy in general ain't going to "die" due to carbon pricing as Abbott, McCrann and Bolt claim  .

And let's not to leave out the travelling Wizard of Oz with the phony peerage Chris Monckton who gives a few quotes in Latin as part of his act to give the impression he knows all yet when you remove the screen of BS he's just a con artist collecting money from gullible neo-cons who are desperate for someone anyone to tell them only what they want to hear. I mean if he's such a genius as his neo-con disciples claim then he should know the difference between surface area and volume when he's talking about Greenland  . Btw has he found the cure for AIDS and MS yet as he's claimed :nup. The guy is a complete and utter nutjob! He reminds me of emails out of the blue telling me Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum physics were totally wrong and how their BS "theories" that actually prove nothing were right. It's quite amazing that there are fruitcakes out there who fanatically believe their mumbo jumbo pseudo-science crap and think it's a conspiracy theory when no one in science takes them seriously!  

[Penelope]

tiga, do you not believe that absorption of excess co2 by the oceans is leading to acidification of the waters?

https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/handle/1912/370
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5879/1020.short
http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/7878/1/965_Raven_2005_OceanAcidificationDueToIncreasing_Monogr_pubid13120.pdf
ftp://128.193.67.22/dist/OMEL/Diazo_CO2/MEPS_ThemeSection08.pdf#page=77
http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m373p285.pdf

theres plenty more to be found using google scholar. (which should be first point of call for investigating scientific info)

to make comments about flawed science and them make a comment about co2 not being a pollutant.....

I think you may have missed dook's point about the collection plate,  but surely you are taking the pee when you say you put money on the plate and collected it. your not saying you're a god botherer are you? didn't you once accuse me of holding to Geez dick?

[Tigeritis™©®]

Julia crying......which Julia is it???

was she crying because noone loves her anymore?  Well Mark Riley loves her and she should read this thread because the majority on here think she can do no wrong. 

[1965]

Julia crying......which Julia is it???

was she crying because noone loves her anymore?  Well Mark Riley loves her and she should read this thread because the majority on here think she can do no wrong. 

Facts

1. The next election is more than two years away.

2. The Independents and Greens will not want an early election.

3. Tony A cannot force an election.

4. The carbon Tax is here to stay.

5. The sky will not fall in.

6. Tony Abbott is a dead man walking.

 

[Tigeritis™©®]

Julia crying......which Julia is it???

was she crying because noone loves her anymore?  Well Mark Riley loves her and she should read this thread because the majority on here think she can do no wrong. 

Facts

1. The next election is more than two years away.

2. The Independents and Greens will not want an early election.

3. Tony A cannot force an election.

4. The carbon Tax is here to stay.

5. The sky will not fall in.

6. Tony Abbott is a dead man walking.

 

facts
the independants and the greens run the country.

Carbon tax is a ruse for more money.

This current government will go into the history books as the WORST government Australia has EVER had. 

[1965]

Julia crying......which Julia is it???

was she crying because noone loves her anymore?  Well Mark Riley loves her and she should read this thread because the majority on here think she can do no wrong. 

Facts

1. The next election is more than two years away.

2. The Independents and Greens will not want an early election.

3. Tony A cannot force an election.

4. The carbon Tax is here to stay.

5. The sky will not fall in.

6. Tony Abbott is a dead man walking.

 

facts
the independants and the greens run the country.

Carbon tax is a ruse for more money.

This current government will go into the history books as the WORST government Australia has EVER had. 

Debatable but there is nothing Tony Abbott or you can do about it.

 

[tiga]

Let me clarify my stance on all of this. Do I believe Climate change exists? YES. The climate has been changing on this planet since its creation. Do I believe that Carbon dioxide levels are directly responsible for the warming and cooling of the planet? NO! Carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

If the bold part were true tiga then the Earth would still be covered in a frozen layer of ice known as "Snowball Earth". A million years ago approx. it took volcanic eruptions to break through the ice and pump CO2 into the atmosphere. Without any carbon sinks due to the ice the greenhouse effect kicked in big time and eventually melted the ice. Once the rocky and watery Earth underneath (carbon sinks) were exposed the carbon sinks outweighed the sources and CO2 levels fell back down again. As an aside in the process O2 in the atmosphere rose from 1% to current levels of 21% leading to an explosion in macroscopic life.

From the Collins English dictionary:
pollution (n)
1. the act of polluting or the state of being polluted
2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) harmful or poisonous substances introduced into an environment

The CO2 we are talking about is the CO2 produced as a waste product from the burning of fossil fuels to extract energy. This waste product CO2 which has a different carbon isotope ratio (13C/12C) to atmospheric CO2 is freely being pumped into the atmosphere as an addition to the CO2 already up there and has caused CO2 levels to rise from 280ppm to 390ppm in the past 150 years. We are pumping more CO2 (as well as methane (CH4) and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere than the natural carbon sinks can absorb so CO2 levels continue to rise. As it's leading towards a harmful situation on the environment (rising global surface temperatures over time (decades) and towards an extra 2 degree tipping point) then it's called "pollution" by definition.

Can anyone here prove to me that 1, the earth is currently warming and 2, that this warming is a direct consequence of increased carbon dioxide levels caused by humans in the earths atmosphere? I won't hold my breath on this one....

1. It's not a monotonic increase as shown for example in that paper posted by tiger101 just recently where layers of smog (SO2) can have a competing cooling effect that creates a temporary lull in the rise of surface temperature (see graph posted in this thread: post WWII - 1970s and 1999-2008) but the last two data points 2009 and 2010 have gone up again.

2. As mentioned above the ratio of 13C/12C carbon isotopes is different (slightly lower) in fossil fuels (as its made from mostly decayed plant material and plants prefer the lower atomic mass carbon 12 when they photosynthesize). So not only can scientists measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere but they also can measure the change in the isotope ratio in the atmosphere and this ratio has just so happened fallen over the past 150 years as we as humans have continually added CO2 with a lower ratio from the burning of fossil fuels.

The evidence for AGW is not based on modelling btw. It is based on various empirical evidence.

People, there is no boogie man in the closet! (No Ramps not Jim Boogie, he does exist  )    

You mean the coal industry and the economy in general ain't going to "die" due to carbon pricing as Abbott, McCrann and Bolt claim  .

And let's not to leave out the travelling Wizard of Oz with the phony peerage Chris Monckton who gives a few quotes in Latin as part of his act to give the impression he knows all yet when you remove the screen of BS he's just a con artist collecting money from gullible neo-cons who are desperate for someone anyone to tell them only what they want to hear. I mean if he's such a genius as his neo-con disciples claim then he should know the difference between surface area and volume when he's talking about Greenland  . Btw has he found the cure for AIDS and MS yet as he's claimed :nup. The guy is a complete and utter nutjob! He reminds me of emails out of the blue telling me Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum physics were totally wrong and how their BS "theories" that actually prove nothing were right. It's quite amazing that there are fruitcakes out there who fanatically believe their mumbo jumbo pseudo-science crap and think it's a conspiracy theory when no one in science takes them seriously!  

Whoa...I think I need a month to digest all of that MT. If you are going to debate with me, (and I am keen to do so) please buy a comma or two. I know you strongly disagree with what I have said, and I am happy to hear your argument but god damn, slow it down a bit. It would be like If I discussed networking technologies and the OSI layer (of which I am skilled) in extreme detail with you to prove why the NBN is a complete waste of 34 billion dollars. I know you are well versed in scientific theory but using a verbal avalanche to justify your argument is just going to make we want to switch off. If your responses are detailed, then please break your replies into stages so I can have the opportunity for a rebuttal.  

And al, if you want to debate this, stop following the MT "road train" just so you can feed on any road kill left in his wake. Throwing a truck load of links at me is lazy and does not provide you with any credibility.  This is not the first time you have done this. You are looking like the kid at school standing behind the bully saying "yeah what he says".

[tiga]

I think you may have missed dook's point about the collection plate,  but surely you are taking the pee when you say you put money on the plate and collected it. your not saying you're a god botherer are you? didn't you once accuse me of holding to Geez dick?

What planet are you from??? It is you who have missed the point. I WAS a friggin collector you tool. I collected the money pew by pew and then gave the money to the head collector.
Don't tell me what I do or don't understand. Dooks was talking about everyone chipping in for the collective good.

And what is a Geez dick??  You are clueless pal. Stick to your Simpsons quotes they make you appear far more intelligent.