Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
I will give you points 1 and 5 as weak but fair calls but the rest are not lies in my view.
The anti add though clearly seeks to distort. I though they were the good guys???
 
Knobby22 said:
I will give you points 1 and 5 as weak but fair calls but the rest are not lies in my view.
The anti add though clearly seeks to distort. I though they were the good guys???
Click to expand...

2. The ad calls it "carbon pollution" when it is actually called "carbon dioxide emissions". Why don't they call it by the correct name - are they afraid that people might realise it is the harmless co2? Soot and hydrocarbons etc can rightly be called pollution, but calling co2 pollution is like calling o2 or n2 pollution. It's nonsense. As far as that ********'s analogy of putting your head in a bag of co2, try that with nitrogen (~80% of the atmosphere).

3. Wind and solar power are not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable alternative. How can the masses switch to an alternative that doesn't yet sufficiently exist? Knobby it is not possible to have alternative base load energy unless you have geothermal or hydro. Not available in most places in Oz.

4. Mining and steel plants are two industries that the carbon tax could wipe out (or at least seriously hurt). How are we to manufacture steel wind turbines? How can you dent this point?????

6. Why get Cate to feature in this ad when she flies in private jet? What about her own Co2 emissions. And what about her purchase of a getaway in Vanuatu which is surrounded by sea - rising seas not a problem? And co2 emissions from flying in and out not a problem? Cate Blanchett's island buy in Vanuatu ignores rising seas Not a lie. but exposes the truly monumental hypocricy (and perhaps lack of true conviction?) of the carbonistas.

7. And why are we being asked to say "yes"??? I didn't think Gillard was going to give the electorate a choice by referendum or election? Or does Cate and Caton know something we don't? Knobby why is this not a good point? The ad is propaganda pure and simple.
 
wayneL said:
2. The ad calls it "carbon pollution" when it is actually called "carbon dioxide emissions". Why don't they call it by the correct name - are they afraid that people might realise it is the harmless co2? Soot and hydrocarbons etc can rightly be called pollution, but calling co2 pollution is like calling o2 or n2 pollution. It's nonsense. As far as that ********'s analogy of putting your head in a bag of co2, try that with nitrogen (~80% of the atmosphere).

3. Wind and solar power are not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable alternative. How can the masses switch to an alternative that doesn't yet sufficiently exist? Knobby it is not possible to have alternative base load energy unless you have geothermal or hydro. Not available in most places in Oz.

4. Mining and steel plants are two industries that the carbon tax could wipe out (or at least seriously hurt). How are we to manufacture steel wind turbines? How can you dent this point?????

6. Why get Cate to feature in this ad when she flies in private jet? What about her own Co2 emissions. And what about her purchase of a getaway in Vanuatu which is surrounded by sea - rising seas not a problem? And co2 emissions from flying in and out not a problem? Cate Blanchett's island buy in Vanuatu ignores rising seas Not a lie. but exposes the truly monumental hypocricy (and perhaps lack of true conviction?) of the carbonistas.

7. And why are we being asked to say "yes"??? I didn't think Gillard was going to give the electorate a choice by referendum or election? Or does Cate and Caton know something we don't? Knobby why is this not a good point? The ad is propaganda pure and simple.
Click to expand...

1. It is pollution as it causes an effect that is not desirable. It doesn't have to be a contaminant to be considered pollution.

3. Wind and solar are not the a viable alternative for base load -agreed, but they caan provide some power and they should be encouraged. The add is a quick 30sec thing, it can't go into fine detail.

4. Where is that in the add? It is a argument against, not a statement the add makes.

6. We live in a free country. I am going to a holiday to Hamilton island next month. I'm not camping in the cold in Torquay hugging trees or living in a hole in the ground. It is not necessary to live as a hippy to think the world should do something. This argument is very weak and is used on everyone who wants some form of action.

7. It means opinion but it is a good point. I am not in favour of the carbon tax in its present form and there is elements of propaganda in it but what about the anti carbon add I referred to earlier - BARE FACED LIES are used, that is what I call propaganda, straight lying to the public. Much worse in my view.
 
1. It is pollution as it causes an effect that is not desirable. It doesn't have to be a contaminant to be considered pollution.

What undesirable effects are these? (and remeber we are talking scientifically here not politically). How do we know any effects are negative, if so, there may be positive effects that counterbalance or outweigh the negative. These things we do not yet know.

3. Wind and solar are not the a viable alternative for base load -agreed, but they caan provide some power and they should be encouraged. The add is a quick 30sec thing, it can't go into fine detail.

I agree on energy security grounds, but on co2 grounds some may be counterproductive.

4. Where is that in the add? It is a argument against, not a statement the add makes.

It is nevertheless a valid point

6. We live in a free country. I am going to a holiday to Hamilton island next month. I'm not camping in the cold in Torquay hugging trees or living in a hole in the ground. It is not necessary to live as a hippy to think the world should do something. This argument is very weak and is used on everyone who wants some form of action.

Yes, free to preach the carbon mantra and do precisely nothing. The feedom to be a hypocrite. And the freedom to point out hypocricy. :)

7. It means opinion but it is a good point. I am not in favour of the carbon tax in its present form and there is elements of propaganda in it but what about the anti carbon add I referred to earlier - BARE FACED LIES are used, that is what I call propaganda, straight lying to the public. Much worse in my view.[/QUOTE]

Knobby, I cannot believe that you can say this with a straight face! The warmists use so many, mistruths, untruths, data manipulation and yes bare faced lies, it's laughable. this is just a sympton of the politicization of the debate.
 
Knobby, I cannot believe that you can say this with a straight face! The warmists use so many, mistruths, untruths, data manipulation and yes bare faced lies, it's laughable. this is just a sympton of the politicization of the debate.
[/QUOTE]

Did you read the earlier post?
 
An interesting comment in reply to the incredibly specious Map of Organized Climate Change Denial that appeared in the NYT http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/a-map-of-organized-climate-change-denial/


2.
Adrian O
State College, PA
October 2nd, 2011
11:04 pm


I am a mathematical physicist.

A year and a half ago I started to look for actual measured data,

which I certainly can read,

to find out what is really going on with the anthropogenic global warming.

It took about 50 hours of digging to find the actual data

(which is one of the reasons, I suppose, for which so few people have seen it.)

It showed nothing unusual whatsoever.

In temperatures, sea level rise, ice, glaciers rate of melt.

When looked at historically.

All the unusual things were in "adjustments",

10C warming imagined in the unmeasured Arctic,

serious imagined warming of the unmeasured deep oceans
(which does not translate, through dilation, into unusual sea level rise at the top.)

Trees with unreliable ring thickness in the last, measured, 60 years,
which are imagined to be perfectly reliable a thousand years ago.

Glaciers which, when measured, are melting at the same rate as 60 and 120 years ago. With earlier melting natural and current identical melting imagined to be man made.

Tornado and hurricane activity which, when counted, is weaker than 50 years ago.

The people obsessed with the extra 100 ppm of CO2 = 1/100 of 1% of the atmosphere put up by humans have never made a case. Other than in imagined models, which as far as real science goes, if they don't agree with reality are junk.

In other words, there is nothing to deny in the first place.

Where exactly does that put me on that list?
Click to expand...
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I, yesterday flew from Horn Island along the Queensland coast to Townsville. It is a trip I have done many times before over many years.

Even after so much weather, the coast seems unchanged, no signs of any significant change in beach, land or sea.

I really feel these weather jokers have it wrong. Then I don't believe anything on the ABC, it's so propagandised.

It was a beautiful day.

gg
Click to expand...

What did the dead dugongs look like, And the how was the smell of those decaying sea turtles from up there? (of course that all might be propaganda I probably heard it reported on the ABC) I suppose it's all perspective; feet on the ground or head in the clouds.
 
orr said:
What did the dead dugongs look like, And the how was the smell of those decaying sea turtles from up there? (of course that all might be propaganda I probably heard it reported on the ABC) I suppose it's all perspective; feet on the ground or head in the clouds.
Click to expand...

And this is something to do with climate change because...?
 
/stir
 

Attachments

  • VFFf8.jpg
    VFFf8.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 82
The banking crisis is here and now. Let's deal with a non-protein diet later.

I'm willing to talk about the climate once the climate dudes accept that their analysis involves the bankster dudes. And those same climate dudes realize that most protesters on Wall Street are just ordinary people who don't eat lentil burgers.


Here's the Dudes analysis


 
GumbyLearner said:
The banking crisis is here and now. Let's deal with a non-protein diet later.

I'm willing to talk about the climate once the climate dudes accept that their analysis involves the bankster dudes. And those same climate dudes realize that most protesters on Wall Street are just ordinary people who don't eat lentil burgers.

Here's the Dude and his friend Walter's analysis. The Jesus Quintana is another treat.
Especially when Jesus has to go around the neighborhood. ;)

Click to expand...


 

Similar threads

ducati916
August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ducati916
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
divs4ever
basilio
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
basilio
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Wysiwyg
Top