Act Locally to Axe the Tax

Dear Supporters,

In the next few days we will be launching a poster campaign to coincide with the introduction of the Carbon TAX.

The campaign will consist of distributing this poster http://www.galileomovement.com.au/images/poster_campaign_800c.jpg to shops and business in your local area and asking them to display it prominently in their windows or notice boards.

We have chosen this method of communication as we think it will reach more people than will a letter box drop and needs less effort.

We need your help in two ways:

Firstly, you can request us to send you by mail between 1-5 posters for you to take to your local shops. (More if you are really confident)

Additionally, you are welcome to download and print your own copies and ask businesses to hang them in their front windows.

And secondly, we are looking for 100 supporters to donate $5.00 each to help cover the costs of printing and postage. (All money donated will go towards this campaign only).

Link to our Donations Page http://www.galileomovement.com.au/donations.php

A special big thank you to Steve Hunter who has allowed us to use his illustration.

If you have any questions, or want to show your support or order posters, please email us at Galileomovement@gmail.com

Thank you for your support!
The Galileo Movement

54 Responses to Act Locally to Axe the Tax

  1. kd June 28, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    Aah, more chicken little hysteria from the climate change delusional brigade. The facts are that the science of climate change are the same science that underpin the infrastructure that allows civilisation.

    If we listened to youse political conservatives who deny science due to your blind political ideology we’d still be in the feudal era tugging our forelocks to our lord and working in indentured servitude.

    I find your delusional nonsense highly amusing, and I am waiting for the failure of the economic-end of the world, and the associated egg on your collective faces.

  2. Robert June 28, 2012 at 5:34 am #

    “I find your delusional nonsense highly amusing”

    What is about prissy-sounding snobs and climate alarmism? They seem to go together – like wind-turbines and medieval lifestyles.

  3. kd June 28, 2012 at 6:20 am #

    Robert:

    Let me rephrase that for you: What is it with climate delusionals and their economic armageddon hysteria. They seem to go together like conservative politics and fear-mongering.

  4. Robert June 28, 2012 at 6:59 am #

    The actual effect of climate alarmism will be a further eroding of economic well-being, not an economic armageddon. We will see the further centralising and bureaucratising of economic life, a process favouring the corporate (GE, Goldman-Sachs, GIM) and, of course, the governmental. Unrepresentative government on an international level will weigh more heavily and uselessly on human aspiration. Untested (gang-reviewed) theory will triumph, for a while, over observation, experience and Enlightenment-standard science, and this will meet an emotional need in the unhappy, angry, neurotic and inadequate classes dubiously described as “intellectual”.

    Appalling people like Gore, Soros and Strong will indeed lead the weak and naive around (GetUp, MoveOn, Greens etc), but I don’t see any global conspiracies coming to fruition. It’s just that the truly productive will be stifled and marginalised for a bit, because general prosperity and a burgeoning aspirational class are the natural enemies of collectivists and elitists. The climate, meanwhile, will just do what it has always done.

    The West will survive, civilisation will be fine, and I’ll be fine. But when a misanthropic, elitist snob raises his head, we should kick it hard – just to be sure.

  5. kd June 28, 2012 at 7:02 am #

    If you think there hasn’t been a massive drift to centralised corporate life over the past 50 years you’re in la la land. Mostly achieved via conservative stripe governments reducing tax and regulation for the very rich and imposing the same on those below in the pile[1]. Personally I see the carbon tax as a big opportunity for me and my family to take action to improve our future economic and energy security in the short term. In the longer term I’m not so sure about society’s ability to deal with climate change.

    [1] Aside: “I’ll believe in corporate personhood when Texas executes one”.

  6. Robert June 28, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    I should clarify something. Whenever I get sucked in to this kind of conversation I find a little of the negative rubs off on me.

    I’d just like to say that, though all corporations disgrace themselves at times, and some have disgraced themselves utterly in recent times, the world’s great companies are still pretty good. They’re not really as productive as they seem – they’re not a patch on individual enterprise – but they’re still fine by me. We need their brawn and their reach.

    It’s a while since I thanked the people who mine and process those wonderful substances, coal and petroleum. That stuff is chocolate sunshine and I love it! Whatever (genuine) alternatives eventually replace these energy sources will be even more wonderful, I’m sure. But coal and petroleum rock, and I thank all those involved.

    I love to reflect on how many millions of humans have been liberated by one device: the automatic washing machine. When I think of the fossil fuels involved in both the composition and manufacture of these devices, and when I consider how the devices run in place without smoke, fire or danger of any kind – thanks to coal power! – the gratitude is overwhelming.

    I define a conservative as a serial appreciator. So it’s time for me to say thanks to the miners, investors and heavy manufacturers who make my life, which is pretty good anyway, even better. Thanks, and I hope you are rolling in dough.

    Lastly, I’m so grateful to be around during this brief clement period within the Holocene Interglacial. I don’t know who to thank for that – but thanks anyway!

  7. Neville June 28, 2012 at 8:34 am #

    Well Kd we’ll ask the same question of you that Luke and Gav were asked.

    What difference can OZ make to help mitigate CAGW? Here’s the actual tonnages for both OECD countries and non OECD.

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD

    From 1990 to 2009 OECD countries increased emissions of co2 by one billion tonnes a year. ( 1990 11.6 bn tonnes to 2009 12.6 bn tonnes) This took 20 years but is now dropping with the USA recently reducing its yearly emissions from 2009 levels. Gas is replacing oil and coal in USA and will continue to do so.

    The non OECD started in 1990 at around 10.2 billion tonnes but by 2009 emitted over 17+ billion tonnes.
    The non OECD now emits about 1 billion tonnes a year more co2 than the previous year, so what don’t you understand about this fact?

    Don’t forget the Gillard govt are trying to export more coal and gas every year. Again what is it you don’t underestand about this fact? Don’t forget that iron ore exports require massive energy useage to process to finished product so more massive co2 emissions are generated overseas by our exports of ore as well.

    Resources minister Ferguson has recently encouraged the Vic govt to process and export our huge brown coal deposits. In fact he said we could turn the Latrobe valley into another Pilbara.
    Again what is it you don’t understand about these facts? If the barking mad Gillard govt couldn’t care less about exported co2 emissions why should we?

    But please tell us how we can mitigate CAGW by reducing our 1.3% of co2 emissions by 5% by 2020 here in OZ?
    We require logic and reason and very simple maths to explain your answer.

  8. Phil Spector June 28, 2012 at 8:53 am #

    The diagram provides an excellent description of the endless cycles of corruption. The money train goes round and round and round. Each time all the enviro-cranks, politicians and beauro-cranks get richer and richer, while the poor working masses get poorer and poorer. Its the new version of religion. The church of climate change tells the slaves that they will not go to heaven if they emit carbon dioxide, and the only way they will ever have any hope of have an after life it to enrich the climo-clergy and all the government hangers-on. All thats really needed now is a culture of child molestation and the parallel is complete.

  9. Neville June 28, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    BTW kd here’s Martin Ferguson reference from the AGE.

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pilbara-plan-for-victoria-20120418-1x7ox.html

    Just a clue, another Pilbara is BIGGGG but then again so are our brown coal deposits in Vic.
    Starting to wake up are we?
    Geeezzz they’re really concerned about co2 emissions ( sarc)—— I don’t think so. But do you? Just apply simple kindy logic and reason and there is only one conclusion.

  10. Ian Thomson June 28, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    Hi kd,
    It is funny that before I read your post this morning over a cup of tea, I had been thinking about
    ” science that underpin(s) the infrastructure that allows civilisation.”
    You see I had crawled back into bed while the coal powered kettle was boiling and the ABC news reader was explaining how people would get a guaranteed price for solar generated power uploaded to the grid.
    This price is basically going to be subsidised by (a) The consumer pricing and (b) the taxing of the coal power generator — passed back to the consumer. ( Interesting to note Snowy Hydro is in the polluter list.)
    I was thinking how in the dark and frost outside, this did not seem too sensible really.
    My thoughts wandered to last May, when the Dubbo ABC radio presenter explained that the no show of weather readings, from auto-stations at Bourke and several other places, were caused by all the cool cloudy weather. You see they had been converted to solar recharging and there was not enough sun to recharge them.
    (Perhaps the ABC will put its money where its mouth is and convert ‘Media Watch’ to solar power, we can all hope I suppose.)

    I find it weird that apparently the people who contribute here have “conservative”, ” blind political ideologies” , given that most contributors seem to by highly critical of ALL political parties.
    That said, you have to see that the mob you obviously hero worship, are the ones currently doing the things which get up our nose a bit.

    I wish you and your family all the best of luck with improving your economic and energy security.
    I just hope you do not depend on a job at an abbatoir or manufacturer or processor of agri-products for your security. I also hope that you don’t, like me, need fuel to get there .

  11. Ross June 28, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    It is not only the theft via CO2 taxes we need to focus on.We have to stop this march to war by US/NATO wanting to attack Syria and Iran. http://www.globalresearch.ca/

  12. Debbie June 28, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-28/extreme-temperatures-far-north-sa-climate-change/4097706?section=sa

    Gee whiz,
    These people are amazing! It continues to drivel out ad nauseum.

  13. spangled drongo June 28, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    Just think, It’s the KDs that are running the world today.

    What an incredibly tolerant lot we deniers are.

  14. Ian Thomson June 28, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    sd,
    ” youse” dunno how tolerant “youse” are mate.

  15. John Sayers June 28, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    Debbie – the author of that paper in the ABC klink is none other than:

    John Tibby leads the Environmental Reconstruction and Monitoring Research Group at the University of Adelaide and currently supervises nine PhD and one Masters student.

    His current research focuses on the history of wetlands on North Stradbroke Island (NSI), south-east Queensland and the history of the Lower Murray River lakes, South Australia.

    http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/john.tibby

  16. toby June 28, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    kd, current policies are not doing anything for the environment. IN FACT given how much damage is done in the name of the environment, its not hard to conclude that environmentalists are infact naively dangerous to mankind. For instance in producing solar panels gases are created that are 12,000-23,000 times more warming than co2?!! Wind towers do not reduce emissions they increase them due to backup requirements and the obvious emissions of co2 in their production. The list is endless….buying a new hybrid car if your old car was still adequate is not saving the planet.

    Food prices are being driven up due to biofuels and habitat is being destroyed all in the name of saving the planet.
    cost of energy is rising making it harder for people to heat and cool homes etc. for what? are you really so naive as to think developing countries will stop developing and rich countries will go back to living poor lifestyles??!!

    grow up and be realistic. EVEN if the science is sound, without new technology nothing we do will matter.

    So called environmentalists do not have a monopoly on caring, far from it.

    celebrate human progress and be positive about the future.

    But if you want to live in a cave do so by all means, but you will not be helping anyone and you will be harming your family and their future.

    If you really want to help the environment then help the poor to get rich, then they can start to care about it rather than how to feed themselves.

  17. kd June 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    Ian Thompson:

    Sorry I should have been clearer: “Scence that underpins civilisation” should have been “scientific theories that underpin civilisation”. Theories of chemical bonds, electromagnetic radiation, quantum theory, laws of motion and thermodynamics. Pretty incontravertable stuff, but something that the Merchants of Doubt seek to twist for their own agenda as they did previously with tobacco science.

  18. toby June 28, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    kd, have you noticed that those theories have proven results and dont rely on models? Empirical evidence supports these theories, and if they stopped working they would be modified or thrown out.
    Since the climate models are fundamentally flawed and we have seen no real rise in atmospheric temp for over a decade and ocean temps are stable to declining and sea level is rising at a decellerating rate…what would it take for you to review your faith in CAGW and its clearly unsettled science??! Do you really believe we will see 2-5 c increase in temps and 60-80cm sea rise?……ignoring of course pseuoscientists such as karoly, flannery, robyn williams and their meter to hundred meter predictions which are clearly an embarrassment to any real scientist?( arent they??)

    climate science is predominantly pseudo science and is doing much to ruin humanities faith in science. It is time you woke up/ grew up and stopped thinking of sceptics as the enemy and heretics and haters of humanity.
    It is the opposite, we care deeply and can only shake our heads at the zealot like behaviour of so many believers.

  19. Robert June 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Heaven knows what the “sorry” was for, or what became “clearer”. We got a list of respectable (long-tried) theories, maybe to imply that the ludicrous fruits of climate data torturing and climate modelling are somehow related to those revered foundational notions of science?

    Who knows? At least he got to say “tobacco”.

  20. Debbie June 28, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    Kd,
    It’s the shonky use of statistics and projective modelling that is being questioned.
    That’s not ‘science’.
    Funny you mentioned tobacco.
    They did the same thing.
    It wasn’t ‘science’ either.

  21. kd June 28, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    And this is where you sheep continue to read off the denier script and ignore the complexity, the evidence and the well understood scientific basis of climate change. You’re a waste of time only fit to pop in and occasionally laugh at. But it gets boring quickly. I should know better.

  22. Robert June 28, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

    kd, please be assured that most of us believe in “the complexity, the evidence and the well understood scientific basis of climate change”. That’s why we reject the clumsy and blatant fraud of CAGW, and why we’re not surprised that its main appeal is to smug, angry elitists, and cheapjack intellectuals. Seen Jonathan Holmes? Don’t be one of them, kd. Get happy and get rational.

  23. Johnathan Wilkes June 28, 2012 at 7:02 pm #

    kd

    And this is where you sheep continue to read off the denier script and ignore the complexity, the evidence and the well understood scientific basis of climate change. You’re a waste of time only fit to pop in and occasionally laugh at. But it gets boring quickly. I should know better.

    Quite so, as Tim would say.

    Who could argue with such cogent, coherent statement?

  24. Ian Thomson June 28, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    Hi kd, “youse” are dumm,or “youse” aint reeding muctch .
    Please start to read and learn.

  25. Ian Thomson June 28, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    Oh and kd,
    You may be amazed to learn , that in the 1980s one of the oldest, ( average age ,) work forces in the world were the cigar makers in Cuba, (who smoked all day). May well still be.
    You see tobacco is not a carcinogen on its own it is the additives which cause the trouble.
    The Amerindians didn’t even find the stuff addictive.
    Just another spin by the goodies which taxes , takes and provides AFL teams with sponsorship and if you disagree you are a ‘dinosaur’.
    Ban it or forget it

  26. kd June 29, 2012 at 2:33 am #

    Ian,

    Nice move to tobacco denial there, and now you move to denying yet more of the basic infrastructure that underpins civilisation (public health techniques are also pretty solid). Youse denisers are all like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    Also you can go grammar nazi on me all you like, but it’s a dog whistle thing I’m afraid. You see us modern people with some scientific literacy are able to detect youse anti science dinosaurs by your inability to detect irony, cos you ain’t got none.

  27. Debbie June 29, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Kd,
    I’m not anti science. I’m not even anti climate science.
    The use of statistics and projective modelling are seperate disciplines that are not used exclusively by scientists.
    Just about every profession you can think of uses them.
    That’s part of the problem. Many of us know how open to abuse they are..
    That’s what the tobacco industry did. . . abused the stats.
    If you can tolerate the childish behaviour, just listen to one full session of parliament and observe how the same sets of data can be used to prove opposite arguments.
    It’s not science Kd, it was never was about science.
    If you want to, you can make figures admit to just about anything at all. All you have to do is torture them.
    That’s exactly what the tobacco industry did.
    Statistics and projective modelling are merely useful tools, nothing more, nothing less.
    Real time data is the final judge.
    Refusing to update modelling with real time data immediately negates the ‘useful’ in the models.
    They stray further and further from reality.
    That’s what the tobacco industry did.
    I’m sorry you can’t spot it, but that’s also exactly what the proponents of AGW theory are doing.
    It’s easy to see, because they’re not the only ones who have done it or are currently doing it.

  28. Johnathan Wilkes June 29, 2012 at 8:59 am #

    kd
    “youse anti science dinosaurs by your inability to detect irony

    Irony?
    That’s not iron,y that is just trying to be a clever d.
    Fail, I’m afraid even at that!

  29. toby June 29, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    KD, closed mind eh, it must be miserable living in your superior thinking world knowing we are all doomed. I hope the depression drugs are working for you.

    I notice you have responded to ntg i have said. Hardly surpising when my points so clearly make you look like a naive child.

    I just hope if you have children you arent turning them into manic depressants. People like you are actually the evil ones for spreading fear and hatred.

    Do us all a favour and dont drop by again…….

  30. Neville June 29, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Well kd I see you can’t answer my questions surprise, surprise. But you’re in good company ? with Luke and Gav. They can’t answer either.

    So kd why are we introducing a co2 tax set at $23 a tonne when the Gillard govt demonstrate they couldn’t care less about increasing co2 emissions?

  31. kd June 29, 2012 at 3:42 pm #

    toby:

    Yes, governments are terribly conflicted on this issue, making real action even harder. Of course the anti-science, status-quo at all cost, climate denier doom mongers don’t help with that.

  32. Debbie June 29, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Kd,
    Good grief!
    What real action?????
    You must be joking.
    All this alarmist screeching and stupid comments about climate deniers is creating INACTION.
    We have people like you (apparently) running around screeching about ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’ or ‘even more dangerous than terrorism’ and that has succeeded in MAINTAINING the status quo and giving its proponents even more power…to do nothing about anything other than continued alarmist screeching and continued tax burdens.
    Give me a break.
    The climate is no more your friend than mine.
    Our problem isn’t the climate….it’s our inability to accept that it changes and it is variable and sometimes it can behave in extremes (like drought or flood or storm). It also has no interest in conforming to models that use arbitary calendar points and arbitary forcings.
    I have no problem with the continuation of genuine research and genuine collection of data.
    I don’t even have a problem with projective modelling as long as it’s CORRECTLY UPDATED WITH REAL TIME DATA!
    Most businesses use projective modelling….it is not uniquely a ‘science’ tool.
    I have a huge problem with the unrealistic nonsense you are currently sprouting and the profligate waste of moey and resources on a FAILING THEORY!!!!
    The AGW projective models were inaccurate Kd.
    Sorry….I’m sure it’s disappointing for the people who put so much work in to them….but they have not delivered…real time data has even fallen outside the lower end of the parameters….they no longer reflect reality at all….they are no longer ‘useful’….and haven’t been useful for quite some time.
    The scientists are generally OK people (not the AGW celebs) but those models are not OK at all.

  33. el gordo June 29, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    ‘Of course the anti-science, status-quo at all cost, climate denier doom mongers don’t help with that.’

    kd is a Deltoid trained warrior…

  34. kd June 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    debbie:

    I’m always briefly amused by your ‘war is peace, truth is lies and f#$$ing is virginity’ screed.

    I mean the logical end-position of a climate denier is that the whole edifice of civilisation is built on a conspiracy of massive proportions. Can’t get more hysterical and idiotic than that …

  35. el gordo June 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    ‘Can’t get more hysterical and idiotic than that …’

    The irony burns…

  36. el gordo June 29, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    ‘I mean the logical end-position of’ the Denialati is that global cooling is coming. We are sitting atop the Modern Climate Optimum, temperatures have not risen in 17 years.

    It may only be a short period of cooling, 20 years or more and then temps will pick up again. The theory that a harmless trace gas had any connection will then be history…and how we laffed.

    Some of the Denialati are a little more morose and become agitated with the notion that we face impending disaster from a 1470 year cycle. The idea is plausible, but I’m a little sceptical.

  37. Debbie June 29, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Hysterical? 🙂
    Climate denier?
    How does one deny the climate?

    ROFL

    I agree el gordo,
    The irony is delicious.

  38. kd June 30, 2012 at 1:20 am #

    See, el-gordo and debbie both denying the theories of chemical bonds and electromagnetism which is well understood, and what you rely on for many aspects of your daily life as participants in industrial society. It’s briefly an amusing case study in scientific illiteracy, but quickly becomes tedious.

  39. Debbie June 30, 2012 at 9:57 am #

    I thought we were denying the climate?
    So Kd, please confirm how AGW theory is using the sound principles of chemical bonding and electromagnetism and scientifically demonstrating the alarming influence of CO2 on global climate?
    Real time empirical data please.
    Then please explain how putting a price on CO2 emissions could be considered as helpful or progressive action for Australia’s future?
    If you are correct in your claims that it is based on sound empirical scientific evidence, that should not be a problem for someone who professes such amazing scientific literacy.
    So far you have only sprouted political adversarial rubbish that sees you claiming that you are standing on some type of moral high ground and therefore ‘self justified’ to call people who are asking perfectly reasonable questions stupid names like ‘climate deniers’.
    I also ask again. How does one successfully deny the climate?
    Isn’t that what models based on AGW theory doing?
    They claim the trend is global and that increased CO2 emissions are a key driver.
    It is becoming increasingly likely that both those assumptions are incorrect. Real time data is simply not supporting the theory.
    The trends seem more likely to reflect specific localities especially UHI, and that CO2 is just sitting down the back of the bus somewhere as a minor influence (globally).
    No one is pretending that human activity does not have influences.
    For you to accuse people of saying that means that you are in denial.
    No one is pretending that the climate doesn’t change.
    Your accusations once again exhibit denial.

  40. el gordo June 30, 2012 at 10:15 am #

    ‘the theories of chemical bonds and electromagnetism’

    Ha ha…joker.

    Climate is chaos and 17 years of cooling indicates CO2 has no case to answer.

  41. Johnathan Wilkes June 30, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    el gordo,
    I can see you are having fun with this, but can’t see why you bother?
    The man is an ignorant nincompoop who picked up a few catchphrases along his travels and tries to make use of them.

    “the theories of chemical bonds and electromagnetism”? WTF has it to do with the price of fish, let alone with climate debate?
    Sheesh!

  42. Debbie June 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    WTF indeed Johnathon Wilkes.
    Apparently in the world of Kd it’s possible to draw an impossibly long and unrealistc bow which can be translated thus:
    If we don’t blindly and faithfully subscribe to the theory (repeat theory) of AGW and the subsequent urgent, alarming necessity to place a price on CO2 emissions, then that means that we must therefore reject every last scientific discipline that has ever existed and which (ironically) Kd rightly says has benefitted modern mankind. 🙂
    So…WTF….is a good summary.
    I don’t know how to paste it here (I’m sure someone else can) but I refer Kd to the graph put together by Dr David M.W. Evans which clearly plots the 1990 IPPC highest, best and lowest estimates against subsequent reality…..that’s 22 years of real time data Kd.
    This bloke:
    ‘Dr David M.W. Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.’
    Can explain to us here what (by your definition of the science) is scientifically unsound about this graph?
    How does someone like Dr David Evans deny such disciplines as electromagnetism by demonstrating that real time empirical data does not sufficiently correlate to even the lowest estimates of the IPPC projective models?
    Which is incorrect Kd? The IPPC projective models or real time data?
    Why does real time data….for 2 DECADES…. keep dropping well below the the lowest IPPC modelled estimates?
    What does that tell a ‘scientifically literate’ person Kd?
    Please….stay clear of name calling and silly personal attacks…..Dr Evans is most definitely a ‘scientifically literate’ individual.
    Explain what is wrong with his analysis in ‘scientific’ terms and considering stats are involved you may need to explain what is wrong in ‘mathematical’ terms as well.
    Real time emprical data please….we have already established that the IPPC AGW(global) models with their arbitary CO2 forcings are not matching the real time data…except in localised examples that seem to indicate perhaps UHI….not CO2….is the likely culprit.

  43. el gordo June 30, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    ‘…but can’t see why you bother?’

    Thanx for your concern Johnathan, I need the practice. Apparently a quarter of Australia’s population believe in human induced gorebull worming and I may be called upon to debrief them.

    kd is harmless.

  44. Johnathan Wilkes June 30, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    Debbie, (without starting a mutual admiration group)

    I like your posts, and read them from first letter to the last. They are well written, logically argued and most of the time to the point, your time spent at school and uni was not wasted in the least.
    But you wasting your time with people like kd.

    I doubt he reads beyond the first line.
    Facts, figures and logic only get in the way of a good rant.

    Yes EG. see your point, I often wonder about some people, we have a member in the family, lovely level headed girl in every other aspect, but when the subject of CC comes up, we usually just stop if she is about.
    There is no way she would listen to any argument, accept any reason or example given, as far as she is concerned we all are serving some evil power and denying the right of “mother” Earth..
    Wonder why is it so?

  45. Ian Thomson June 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm #

    Hi Johnathan Wilkes,

    It is apparent to me that as a screeching denialist, you have been too busy polishing your conservative stripe to keep abreast of progressive climate science. So let me explain.

    The Theory of Chemical Bonds :-
    Everyone arrives back in Canberra unable to form a Government. Adrenaline is rife, everyone is tearing around trying to find a friend to calm them down. Julia’s mob find three staunch friends to stand beside.
    The ensuing relief from the grip of adrenaline brings on a rush of serotonin so strong that one of the three wise friends makes a long enraptured speech ,which to some sounded like ‘speaking in tongues’

    In this chemically derived euphoria they all forget what they are there for and formulate a carbon tax.
    This has the effect of closing major coal fired power stations, causing summer and winter power cuts in the City. Urban Heat Island hotspots disappear and the average planetary temperature falls.
    A victory for chemical bonding.

    Electromagnetism is a little harder for youse deniers to grasp :-
    First you have to know that there is BAD or black magnetism and GOOD or white magnetism.
    Black magnetism is used in major power stations within this wasteful hedonistic country and causes a lot of UHI. It has an obvious effect on climate and therefore must be abolished at all costs. ( For the above reason explained in your chemical update )

    Now, white magnetism starts out very similar to black magnetism. However it is produced from rare earth sources by selfless Third World people . Their willingness to sacrifice health and landscape to the polluting radioactive nastiness of making the stuff to save the Planet converts it to a sacred ‘white’ substance suitable for use in windmills and Toyota Prius’.

    I hope this is simple enough for your denialist mind.

  46. Johnathan Wilkes June 30, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Ian

    Now, white magnetism starts out very similar to black magnetism. However it is produced from rare earth sources by selfless Third World people . Their willingness to sacrifice health and landscape to the polluting radioactive nastiness of making the stuff to save the Planet converts it to a sacred ‘white’ substance suitable for use in windmills and Toyota Prius’.

    You don’t know how close you are to some peoples’ thinking, it’s frightening!

  47. Debbie June 30, 2012 at 3:50 pm #

    Thanks Johnathon,
    Of course you’re right….we shouldn’t give him oxygen….but I’m a bit like EG….the practice is good for me.
    Kd and other childish ranters who appear on this blog are extremely useful as they often forewarn me of the next round of empty rhetorical spin and superior name calling that I’m likely to encounter.
    I note that it’s no longer climate change denier….we now actually deny the climate.
    I also note one of the the new sexy alarmists term from Rio appears to be ‘environmental change’ (courtesy of another ranter).
    So although highly amusing and ( I agree EG) basically harmless….Kd has actually offered me a valuable service.
    My honest and sincere thanks Kd….I expect that future generations will benefit from your help here….they may yet get to have similar opportunities that you have had in our very fortunate country….despite your best efforts.

  48. el gordo June 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm #

    ‘Yes EG. see your point, I often wonder about some people..’

    We have lost a generation of young people, brainwashed watermelon zealots. To my thinking it would have been nice if Gina got three seats on the board and encouraged the Fairfax journalists to be more balanced on CC.

    In the meantime we’ll have to find another way to debrief them. Humour, brevity, irony etc. for the young… should bring them to their senses fairly quickly.

    On the other hand, grandmothers won’t listen to reason and it’s advisable not to talk about the weather at family gatherings.

  49. kd June 30, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    debbie: answers to your questions are well documented elsewhere.
    An anti-science political posturing forum like this isn’t really the place to go into detail. But I’ve noticed that one technique that the climate delusionals like to make use of is to ask for explanation from first principles every time in order to distract from their anti-science idiocy for as long as possible.

  50. Johnathan Wilkes June 30, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    EG
    She is 34, has a masters in accounting/economics, works for the third largest of the big three, if you get my drift?
    As to my granny? She had more sense than the whole bunch of pollies in parliament today.

  51. el gordo June 30, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    ‘As to my granny?’

    Yeah, generalisations are not helpful. I unreservedly retract any slur on grandmothers.

    I have been battling nannys on the blogosphere for years…they accuse me of being indifferent to the fate of their grandchildren when I state that sea level has stopped rising and there is nothing to be afraid of.

  52. Debbie July 1, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Kd
    Climate delusionals? 🙂
    First principles?
    Well documented elsewhere?
    Do you mean the veritable mountains of contradictory reports that look more like what Walter Starck calls ‘an academic pissing contest’?
    Chuckle.
    I’m assuming from your comment that your answer to my straight forward question is that the last 2 decades of real time data is wrong?
    I’m also led to assume that you think taxing CO2 is going to ‘fix it’? (whatever ‘it’ now is).
    Political?
    Read back over the comments with an objective eye and see if you can spot the blogger who keeps making the generalised rhetorical political comments.
    I’m not all that enamoured with the politics from any angle in this debate.
    The politics and associated bureaucratic institutions have effectively prevented any genuine encouragement of human ingenuity.
    So called ‘global climate action’ and that ridiculously counter productive Precautionary Principle have much to answer for.

  53. el gordo July 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm #

    Hear hear! The precautionary principle is the root cause of this useless tax.

  54. Phil Spector July 7, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    Of course we need a carbon tax. How else do you expect all those travel expenses at the Department of Climate Change to be funded? How else will all those dubious limo expenses by Peter Slipper get paid? Who will pay for Craig Thompson’s fun and games? Who will pay all those climate commissioners? Of course we need a carbon tax. Or else throw out the lot and start from scratch.

Website by 46digital