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???
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.
BIG swaths of forest from Perth to the South-West the size of 50 Kings Parks have died from drought and may never recover, scientists warn.
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?
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
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.
And this is something to do with climate change because...?
And the comment before that did ?
Wow, it really is a sick f-king world, isn't it?/stir
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.
Did what?
Nought.
In fact the amount of hot air around here may be a problem too.
Agree that appears to be a major problem... that and "adjustments" of data.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?