OT GW

[who where]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

(snip)

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week.

Another figure pulled straight out of your arse, Trev? Or more of
your blind faith in the utterances of the pro-carbon-tax groupies?

Accept or deny these simple facts:

1. Electricity generators (the organisations, not the hardware) will
NOT materially change their existing plant in the face of the tax.
They will simple pass on the cost to their customers.

2. They (Verve in the case of W.A.) have estimated a minimum 8%
increase based on the *startup* tax rate. (And note that the tax will
increase yearly after its introduction.)

3. The S.A. government recently provided a figure of ~$2000 as the
average household annual electricity bill. (Mine here in Perth is
somewhat higher).

4. 8% of $2000 p.a. is $160 p.a. - more than TEN TIMES your fanciful
30c/week.

So you think the generators will pass on less than 10% of their tax
bill? You ARE living in a dream world.

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.

I wonder why your preoccupation with the aforementioned? You seem to
think that everybody that is opposed watches or listens to them.
I never listen to Alan Jones (don't like him)don't listen to the other
two either, You would be better sticking to your take on the facts,
continually harping on localized personages does not help your argument,
especially with people who have never heard of them.

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?


Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?


**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work. In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy? Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 5:56 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:

On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.



The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?



Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?



**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work. In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy? Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?

We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the
effects of it were masked by the housing boom
and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on
effect from it.

Now that that is over we shall see. The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,
and that governments are only good at turning things to shit means
inherently overall it has to have a BAD effect.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[who where]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:04:25 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

kreed <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 4, 2:17=A0pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The scam is unraveling! Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

Its wonderful to watch isnt it !

This filthy dirty lowlife Carbon tax / GW scam, Potentially probably
history's greatest ever theft of private property rights, theft of the
fruits of our own labor, and the removal of our right to travel, and
to even exist, or have future generations, not to mention the
corruption and total RAPE of the one time dignity and integrity of the
institution that is science, that (when not in evil hands) has done so
much for mankind and the world .

This scam was a huge hit to humanity itself and just about everything
it had achieved. Its so good to see the tide turning, but the battle
is not over yet. We need to see the scum behind it being shown to
cells and gallows for this crime against humanity.

Quoting from 2268.txt of the Climategate files:

>What if climate change appears to be just mainly a
>multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us
>probably...

Or even a longer - but natural - cycle. The presence of residue of
temperate forests under the (in places) kilometre-thick ice cap in
Greenland suggests this planet has "been there, done that".

And I doubt that even Trevor could call that prior period the result
of AGW.

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/5/2011 8:48 AM, Noddy wrote:
On 5/12/2011 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?

Out of context? Jesus Trev....

**Yep. Out of context. Tell you what: YOU supply the allegedly daming
words, IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTEXT to me and let's discuss what you
consider to be a problem. Fair enough?


The issue has become a *major* embarrassment for the IPCC, to the point
where it's now being called "Climategate".

**ONLY by the likes of Alan Jones. The SCIENTISTS are all still in
agreement. Again: Why do you persist in ignoring the science? Why do you
persist in listening solely to the likes of Alan Jones? What scientific
credentials does he have?


**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?

Your blind faith is absolutely staggering Trevor, and to the point where
it makes your criticism of religious fanatics look incredibly ironic.

**Examining the data is not an act of blind faith. It's just science.



**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week.

Absolute bullshit Trevor.

**Then YOU supply your alternate figures. Over to you...



There is no way *anyone* can accurately predict the effects of such a
tax on the average Joe, as it will be some time *after* the scheme is up
and running that the true cost will become known.

**And again: Supply your alternate figures.



Moreover, what largely remains *unknown* is what this new tax is going
to achieve. I mean, it's not just a case of introducing a tax just for
the sake of it, right? It's actually going towards *something* that will
make a difference to the environment, isn't it?

**The tax is designed to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions. All the
economists who have studied the tax, have stated that it probably will
lower Australia's CO2 emissions. They have also provided data on the
anticipated costs. OK, so far? These are the same economists who
predicted what effects the GST would have on the economy. Are you now
disputing what the economists have stated will likely occur? Do you have
some data to back your claims?



His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

Uh-huh...

**Again: The same economists that predicted (correctly) the effects of
the GST are telling us what effects the government's carbon tax and
Abbott's carbon tax will have.


You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.

Which economists would these people be?

**The same economists that (correctly) predicted the effects of the GST.


I don't support either plan Trev,

**OK. Why? Moreover, if you reject the government's plan, then you
accept Abbott's plan.

By what reasoning? He has said that he does not accept either plan.


Abbott's plan has been universally condemned as

wasteful and ineffective. I accept that you may not like a carbon tax
(For the record: I HATE the idea of a carbon tax), but if your going to
suffer a carbon tax (and you will, regardless of who is in government),
then you may as well support the tax that has the best chance of working
and costing the community as little as possible.


but all I've seen of Gillard's plan in
the mass media is universal condemnation from business groups

**You sure about that? Some of the largest mining corporations are in
favour of it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/carbon-tax-is-necessary-says-bhp-chairman-jac-nasser/story-fn7j19iv-1226197858222





, the
financial sector and the public at large.

**Sure. Ignorant people will always prefer to listen to anyone, except
those who actually know stuff. It's why religion is so popular. And
let's not get side-tracked: NO ONE WANTS A CARBON TAX. Not me, not you,
not the government. However, we do need to find a way to reduce CO2
emissions. The carbon tax would seem to be the most effective way of
accomplishing that.


The general consensus seems to
be that the tax is *way* out of proportion to the environmental effects
that will be achieved (assuming for the sake of the argument that those
targets will actually be met).

**The "general consensus" is code for: A bunch of ignorant dickheads. I
don't give a crap about what Fred Bloggs doen the road thinks about
anything. If I want to know about what is wrong with my car, I'll ask my
mechanic (or you). I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about the
mysterious lump on my leg, I'll ask my doctor. I won't ask Alan Jones.
If I want to know about the economic effects of a carbon tax, I'll ask
an economist. I won't ask Alan Jones. If I want to know about climate
change, I'll ask the CSIRO, BoM or NASA. I won't ask Alan Jones.

The real question here is this: Why do YOU place your faith in what Alan
Jones, Andrew Bolt and George Pell say, rather than the people who know
what they're talking about?



The other unappealing point of the Gillard plan is that with those
polluting businesses who will be subject to the tax being allowed to
pass their increased costs onto the consumer there is absolutely *no*
incentive whatsoever for them to lift a finger to do anything about
cleaning up their acts.

**Incorrect. The companies that generate or use power with low CO2
emissions can sell their power, goods and/or services at a lower cost,
because their costs of doing business are lower than their less
efficient competition.


If that does indeed become the case, the net
result will be increased costs all round with no impact on the
environment at all.

**Maybe that will occur. Or maybe competitive factors will come into play.


Maybe you could explain to me how you see this as a *good* thing?

**Your assumption is not necessarily correct. The power companies that
generate their energy via the use of geo-thermal, Solar, wind or other
low emission technologies will have a competitive advantage. They can
sell at a lower cost and gain market share.


In fact, the government's scheme will likely have less than
25% of the impact on the economy that GST did. Did the GST destroy the
Australian economy?

Not really an accurate comparison Trev, as the GST was a streamlining of
an existing tax system. Not an across the board increase per se'. Under
the GST, some things actually got cheaper.

**And others got more expensive. TOTAL tax receipts increased
dramatically. We paid far more total tax the day after GST was introduced.


The Carbon Tax will just add cost to everything.

**Wrong. The carbon tax will add to the cost of many things. Just like
GST did.


Why would you imagine that a scheme which has a far
smaller effect than the GST will cause the Australian economy any
serious effects?

"Serious effects" are your words, not mine.

**No. They are the words of the economists.


I don't expect the impact will be huge, but I expect it will be largely
ineffective with the impact on the environment being so small it'd be
impossible to measure even if the plan works exactly as designed.

In other words, I think it'll be *very* poor value for money.

**And your economic credentials are?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 10:05 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/5/2011 10:56 AM, kreed wrote:



On Dec 4, 5:06 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:
The scam is unraveling!

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

    It appears that some of the predictions based on this peer reviewed
science may not be backed up by evidence and fact.

Thats because its not. It's mostly fabricated crap in order to get the
result they are paid
to get and it is laugable.  The peers that review this garbage are
just as corrupt as the authors.

**I see. So, your contention is this:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO,
NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of
Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science,
the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The
Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, et al.) tell us that AGW is the most likely
explanation for the warming that has been noted. You claim that these
guys are all wrong and that Tony Abbott, George Pell, Alan Jones and
Monckton are correct, despite the fact that not one of these clowns has
a scientific education. Is that your contention?


If what you say is correct, then it must be the most massive cover-up

in

the entire history of the planet.

When you look at the staggering amounts of money and power at stake
here, buying off
these organisations (note most are gov funded) would cost lunch money
by comparison

There is one rule that always applies, -- IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE
MONEY / POWER. This is how
it always has been.


When you look at how things work in real life, and not in TV land or
Government land, this is the only answer.

There is another possibilty:

That the scientists are right and the raving loonies and shock-jocks
don't know what they're talking about.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Bernd Felsche]

Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/5/2011 1:35 AM, kreed wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:17 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The scam is unraveling! Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

Its wonderful to watch isnt it !

This filthy dirty lowlife Carbon tax / GW scam, Potentially probably
history's greatest ever theft of private property rights, theft of the
fruits of our own labor, and the removal of our right to travel, and
to even exist, or have future generations, not to mention the
corruption and total RAPE of the one time dignity and integrity of the
institution that is science, that (when not in evil hands) has done so
much for mankind and the world .

**What the fuck are you smoking? Where do you get this crap from? The
Alan Jones school of debate? It seems that in the abscence of science,
you resort to complete and utter bullshit. The facts are blindingly simple:

* The planet is warming at a faster rate than at any time in the last
600,000 years.

Nope. Far from it. Temperature rose more than 10°C/century at the end
of the Younger Dryas.

* Oil is running out. If we have not already hit 'peak oil', then we're
not far from it.

The availability of oil has nothing to do with climate change.
Nor does anthroprogenic CO2.

There is no peer-reviewed paper that provides a causal link between
anthroprogenic CO2 and climate change.

* At our present rate of use, the planet's resources will be depleted
within a few hundred years.

Turn off your computer now and save the planet.
From your stupid remarks.

This scam was a huge hit to humanity itself and just about everything
it had achieved.

**What "scam"? Please present your peer-reviewed science to support your
notion of this alleged scam you refer to.

That of the climate "scientists" who hide the uncertainty and
exaggerate the significance; to perpetuate their own income and to
feel good about supporting "the cause".

Its so good to see the tide turning, but the battle
is not over yet.

**Popular opinion is not scientific fact. It's just the opinion of a
bunch of people who don't have a clue. Much like yourself.

Oh? So why were you rambling on about "consensus" then?

We need to see the scum behind it being shown to
cells and gallows for this crime against humanity.

**Why? Because they cite the facts? Yeah, that's the Catholic Church's
answer. Remember Gallileo. Never forget the ignorance of the masses and
the Catholic Church.

Irrelevant bollocks. The climate "scientists" have been gilding
their turds and selling them as science.

Why do you deny that? It's plain as day in the UEA emails.

You've always been a denier.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

 

[kreed]

On Dec 5, 9:58 am, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

On 12/5/2011 10:50 AM, kreed wrote:

On Dec 4, 3:57 pm, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 12/4/2011 3:17 PM, F Murtz wrote:

The scam is unraveling!

**What "scam" would that be?

Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

laughing stock by your standard, but not by anyone else's

**OK. I accpet that you reject science in preference to religious opinion..





   Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint

skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.

**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded them.

I don't know about that,  this Labor dictatorship would without a
doubt be the worst and most incompetent
government in living memory - thats even before the carbon tax was
brought in.

**"Dictatorship"? What are you smoking?

People didn't want a carbon tax, this was known, and was told loud and
clear
to this government. IT was rammed down people's throats. They are
meant to
represent the wishes of the people. They blatantly shit all over them,
and lied
about it at election time to boot. If I or anyone else did this as a
director of a company
(which the government more or less is) then there would be
prosecutions and time spent in a cell.


Overall both parties are controlled from behind the scene by the same
corporate/bank
interests, so in reality a change of government here overall is really
just the controlling
hand slipping on another puppet and hanging it out in public, with a
different "spin".

As we saw this time, Independents will sell out pretty easily and
arent' worth shit.


The government was

Democratically elected under the our rules of Constutional Law. As for
incompetence, I see a government that is nor more and no less
incompetent than most that have come before.

The insulation, school halls, and other stimulus packages have been
complete
disasters. I doubt that there is anything this lot have been able to
do competently.

I remind you that it was
not the Labor government that has deliberately wasted valuable
Australian lives and a not inconsiderable chunk of money, invading Iraq
and propping up a hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. Those
little conflicts were enacted by the Howard/Abbott team.

And none were stopped by this regime either under Rudd or Gillard.

Labor also supported these adventures at the time, and if they had
been in power, no doubt they would also have approved them.
These things were done to ensure large corporations could control as
much of the oil as possible, and therefore as monopolists
force up the price, manufacture fake shortages to justify these price
increases.

Abbott has promised to get rid of the carbon tax, that is about the
only thing he has going for him.  He could also be lying.

**Abbott has promised to enact his "direct action" form of carbon
reduction scheme. A scheme which has been roundly condemned by all the
economists.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 12/5/2011 8:49 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:56:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 12/4/2011 11:56 PM, Noddy wrote:
On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

**Again: Citing Alan Jones as some kind of credible scientific source is
hardly appropriate. When the guys at CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy
of Science, the US National Academy of Science, the UK Met, The
Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science, the German Academy of
Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal
Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.
When all these guys (and a many more SCIENTIFIC organisations) tell us
that AGW is a "scam", then and only then, will I sit up and take notice.

I'll say again: Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, George Pell and yourself, have
zero credibility as climatologists.


The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding
after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

**Really? Of are you just accepting some out of context words, from
people who have a financial gain in perpetuating the digging up of
fossil fuels?


Don't forget your peer-reviewed science. Failure to present it will
result in you being called a laughing stock

Feel free to call me a laughing stock Trev. When you have people like
Bob Brown on your side I piss my pants all day long

**Make no mistake: Bob Brown is a politician. Bob Brown is NOT a
climatologist. I don't listen to Bob Brown. I listen to the scientists.
You listen to shock jocks. Wanna bet on who is right?


**Thanks to Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Bolt, et al, they already are.
Sadly, they're no better nor worse than any government that preceeded
them.

If Abbott lives up to his promise of abolishing the Carbon Tax when he
takes office at the next election he'll be better than most.

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week. His tax will extract taxpayer funds and
give it to large companies in the hope that they will spend it wisely.
Abbott's tax will increase the size of the public service by many
thousands. Taxes will rise to accomodate his increased spending.

You tell me why you think that Abbott's completely discredited scheme
makes any sense at all. Are you an economist too? All the economists
have stated that Abbott's scheme will be costly and doomed to failure,
whereas the government's scheme will be relatively modestly priced and
will work.


Not that this will change you mind on any of this, but something worth
viewing nonetheless:
http://www.cbc.ca/doczone/episode/the-trouble-with-experts.html

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6862823/CBC_Doc_Zone_The_Trouble_With_Experts_2011_HDTV_x264_AAC

http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/2777785/005760348140/

**I haven't watched the video, but I did read the posted article. OK, so
you tell me:

* Do I ignore my mechanic, when he tells me that my car engine needs an
oil change? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore my doctor, when he tells me that I should have a Sunspot
excised from my face? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I ignore Microsoft, when they tell me I need another 2GB RAm to run
Windows 7, 64bit correctly? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?
* Do I listen to the climatologists, when they tell us that there is too
much CO2 in the atmosphere? Or do I listen to Alan Jones?

It's one thing to weigh up the opinions of people. It's quite another to
be presented with a very large amount of highly compelling data.

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

If I read a critique from an expert film critic panning a film that is
the one I watch (they are usually better) I do not take the word of a
single doctor, any thing microsoft says is suspect they only want to
make money, I would bet that Noddy knows many expert mechanics who are
anything but. I would wager that these public figures that you seem to
have a phobia about are not always wrong they are not experts they just
repeat what others who may or may not be experts in their field say.

 

[Bernd Felsche]

"Clocky" <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

kreed wrote:
On Dec 4, 2:17 pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The scam is unraveling! Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out
they may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint
ever.

This scam was a huge hit to humanity itself and just about everything
it had achieved. Its so good to see the tide turning, but the battle
is not over yet. We need to see the scum behind it being shown to
cells and gallows for this crime against humanity.

The only thing amusing is watching fools like you trying to wish
scientific evidence away.

"evidence"? Your assertion isn't evidence.

Show me the EVIDENCE that anthroprogenic CO2 emissions will lead to
catastrophic global warming. There is not a single peer reviewed
paper that indisputably shows such a link.

Climategate is nothing more than taking private comments completely
out of context and presenting them in deceptive ways.

Ah. Excuse #3
<http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/climategate-ii-handy-guide-to-spot-whitewash-journalism-the-top-10-excuses-for-scientists-behaving-badly/>

Give ONE example where there is lack of context.

The context of the emails is available for all to see.
People are able to check this for themselves.
<http://foia2011.org/> and many other places.

You should really be questioning those who would do such things to
the detriment of mankind. Perhaps they are the ones with a hidden
agenda and you are just foolishly being used as a tool to benefit
them.

Hidden agenda? Perhaps you're suggesting a conspiracy.

It doesn't take either to be stupid.
It doesn't take either to be greedy.
It doesn't take either to be selfish.
It doesn't take either to be megalomanic.
It doesn't take either to be delusional.
It doesn't take either to be arrogant.

Do I take it that you're not part of a conspriacy or that you have a
hidden agenda.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an
X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
/ \ and postings | --HL Mencken

 

[F Murtz]

kreed wrote:

On Dec 4, 2:17 pm, F Murtz<hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The scam is unraveling! Too late for the iniquitous tax, the gubmint
skulduggery is being unearthed bit by bit if they do not watch out they
may end up in history as the most ridiculed and hated Gubmint ever.


Its wonderful to watch isnt it !


This filthy dirty lowlife Carbon tax / GW scam, Potentially probably
history's greatest ever theft of private property rights, theft of the
fruits of our own labor, and the removal of our right to travel, and
to even exist, or have future generations, not to mention the
corruption and total RAPE of the one time dignity and integrity of the
institution that is science, that (when not in evil hands) has done so
much for mankind and the world .

This scam was a huge hit to humanity itself and just about everything
it had achieved. Its so good to see the tide turning, but the battle
is not over yet. We need to see the scum behind it being shown to
cells and gallows for this crime against humanity.

You mention tide, that is one thing that records from pinchgut do not
seem to jell with govt predictions.

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including: CSIRO,
NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National Academy of
Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy of Science,
the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Royal
Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences and Letters, The
Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Scotland, Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences, et al.)

What was their early psition on DDT?

 

[terryc]

John_H wrote:

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution

Umm, John howards Malaysia solution was to take those with money, make
them do a 6 months course and them give them permanent residency no
questions asked.

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

On 4/12/2011 8:40 PM, John_H wrote:

In fact they're hopelessly inept compared to those before them,
whether it be pink bats, climate change, live cattle exports, the
Malaysian solution or Craig Thomson. Being beholden to the Green
Slime hasn't helped. Theirs has to be one of the most spectacular
crashes in Australian political history.

I would have thought it'd be *the* most spectacular. Even Labor party
members are talking about the party being eradicated.

The rot has been into the Labor Party for decades and the Liberals are
just a few years behind them.

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

On 4/12/2011 4:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What "scam" would that be?

The Global Warming one.

The one were most of the "credible" scientists in England who have been
associated with it for a number of years are now largely in hiding after
it was recently revealed that their modelling was wrong (and they knew
it) and that their principal objective was to scare the shit out of the
public to ensure continued funding.

Do you have a URL?
I've tuned out for a while when t went all PR statements rahter than
science discussion.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/5/2011 12:40 PM, terryc wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

ALL the major scientific organisations on the planet (including:
CSIRO, NASA, The Australian Academy of Science, the US National
Academy of Science, the UK Met, The Australian BoM, The French Academy
of Science, the German Academy of Science, Austrian Academy of
Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Royal Danish Acadeny of Sciences
and Letters, The Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Hungarian
Academy of Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of
Scotland, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, et al.)

What was their early psition on DDT?

**No idea. Tell us.

BTW: The theory of human induced global warming is not a new idea. It
was first theorised well over 100 years ago. Over the last 100 years,
mounting evidence has eradicated oposition to the theory. Except by
people like Alan Jones, George Pell and Nick Minchin. Of course, those
guys are ignorant of science.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

Noddy wrote:

**Abbott has promised to eliminate a tax that will cost the average
punter less than $0.30/week.

Absolute bullshit Trevor.

There is no way *anyone* can accurately predict the effects of such a
tax on the average Joe, as it will be some time *after* the scheme is up
and running that the true cost will become known.

Hmm, will you vote Labor if it is only 30c/week?

 

[F Murtz]

Rheilly Phoull wrote:

On 12/5/2011 6:19 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:12:09 +1100, Noddy<me@home.com> wrote:

just because someone wears a white lab
coat and calls themselves a "scientist" that they are automatically a
person of the highest moral standard and couldn't *possibly* be acting
in their own self interest.

Having been a research assistant in my earlier days, I can certainly
attest to that. The things I saw happen...

Any way, despite the thread not being remotely connected to the groups
purpose it's coming along quite nicely. We have politics and religion
combined, I'm just waiting for some one to introduce sex and we'll have
the complete package.

Rheilly

It is because in these groups people are a bunch of friends who like a
chinwag and it is impossible to have a chinwag in the proper group like
aus.politics as it is inhabited by raving ratbags and lunatics worse
than our friendly ones.

 

[terryc]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

So, tell me? Who're you going to place YOUR health care opinions with?
Alan Jones or an 'expert' (aka: Your family GP)?

Well, frankly, as far as some experts go, listening to Alan Jones can
not be any worse. Many "medicial specialists" are just crowd followers
and faddist, even within their own field.

You have to educate yourself and decide what is working and what isn't.

 

[terryc]

kreed wrote:

We have no solid idea yet about the real effect of the GST as the
effects of it were masked by the housing boom
and the associated upturn in just about every business, as a flow on
effect from it.

Bullshit. for many items, there was absoltely no effect as GST just
replaced the impact of sales tax.

Now that that is over we shall see. The basics are is that it is a
tax, and therefore state theft of private property without consent,

You voted, so you consented. Seriously, when did they ammend the
constitution so you had any say. This is australia mate, not the USofA.