Australia See's the Light...

[westwall]

Australia has officially pulled out of the carbon fraud. Good for them!



The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.
The document’s commitment that the government “will review its commitment in 2015 in light of the science and international developments” deliberately allows a range of policy outcomes.

In the unlikely event that all major economies move in a concerted way, Australia could join in. However, the language provides that if the science becomes more unclear, and if nations move away from their earlier enthusiasm for action, then Australia also could wind back its efforts.

The timing of the Warsaw conference on climate change is difficult for the government. It has decided that neither Environment Minister Greg Hunt nor Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will attend.


The Abbott government does not expect any significant progress to occur at the Poland meeting.

Ms Bishop will be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting while part of the conference is on, and then at the annual AUSMIN talks as the Warsaw conference draws to a conclusion.

The government regards AUSMIN, the annual foreign and defence ministers’ meeting between Australia and the US, as vastly more important.

Mr Hunt will be in parliament supervising the introduction of the legislation to repeal the carbon tax while the Warsaw conference is on. However, the government would most likely not have sent a minister in any circumstances as it does not believe the meeting will be of great significance.

Mr Abbott has been strongly critical of agreements in which Australian funds are used to buy permits that are meant to fund cuts to greenhouse gas reductions in other countries – a key mechanism in the global talks.

The Coalition based its criticism of Labor policy on official forecasts showing Australian emissions would rise over time and that the 5 per cent target was only reached by purchasing overseas permits at an eventual cost of $150bn a year in 2050.

“This is by far the biggest wealth transfer from Australians to foreigners that’s ever been contemplated,” Mr Abbott said of purchasing offshore carbon permits.

Read the full story at - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...toughens-stance/story-e6frg6xf-1226756955449#

 

[syrenn]

 

[flacaltenn]

Australia has officially pulled out of the carbon fraud. Good for them!
.
.
.

.
.

“This is by far the biggest wealth transfer from Australians to foreigners that’s ever been contemplated,” Mr Abbott said of purchasing offshore carbon permits.

Read the full story at - Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Whoops.... There IT IS !!! Aussie's aren't falling for those credit shelters that Al Gore built up either.. Betcha guys like Soros and Ole T-Boone Pickens are eating beans and rice this week and watching those investments melt away..

I don't mind trading pollution credits.. THAT has a MEASURABLE effect.. But calling it "carbon" doesn't make it a pollutant.

 

[Noomi]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I hope he builds 50 nuclear plants.

That would do more to curve co2 emissions!

 

[westwall]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

 

[Foxfyre]

What we need is a whole lot more heads of state to pull back from the insanity. Certainly climate change should be studied and certainly if there are obvious trends, we would be wise to plan to make whatever necessary adaptations are necessary for the general welfare.

But given the lack of empirical or scientific evidence that global warming is a problem, if it in fact is occurring, the carbon credit system is a sure and obvious path to nothing but governmental tyranny, massive fraud, and enrichment of a privileged few.

 

[Abraham3]

You keep trying to run that line ("lack of empirical evidence"). Even the deniers aren't following you on that one.

 

[Noomi]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

 

[Foxfyre]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Yes it does. All the time. As climae change has existed since the Earth's atmosphere was created. And because of inevitable changing conditions, I do think it merits study and discussion and informed policy that helps the people on Earth have time to plan for and adapt to those changing conditions.

And it is a near certainty that seven billion of people on Earth are going to affect their environment more than less than a billion people will affect their environment and it hasn't been all that long ago that we have that less than a billion people.

The question is though, whether even seven billion people on Earth are affecting the climate suficiently to be a cause for alarm. The evidence just isn't there. The computer models trying to make the case have been wrong again and again and again.

So it is quite good sense and practical logic and reason to believe that the effort to control people through exchange of carbon credits will have miniscule affect on much of anything other than to relieve us of more of our money while a few clever opportunists are greatly enriched, rob us of more of our liberties while putting more power into the hands of people who likely do not have our best interests at heart.

I pray for the day that you Aussies and the whole educated and common sense world will appreciate that your new leader has it right for now. He may be as bad as you think on eveything else--I don't know--but on this issue he really is doing the right thing.

 

[Abraham3]

Climate change exists. End of story.

Yes it does. All the time. As climae change has existed since the Earth's atmosphere was created. And because of inevitable changing conditions, I do think it merits study and discussion and informed policy that helps the people on Earth have time to plan for and adapt to those changing conditions.

Well, guess what? You should be as happy as a clam: thousands of scientists have been studying it for decades now. The best of their work is compiled by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When Noomi says it exists, I'm pretty sure that she's referring to the panel's conclusions (available at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that the climate's warming seen over the last century and a half has primarily been caused by human GHG emissions and that the rate of change of several parameters is unprecedented in human history.

And it is a near certainty that seven billion of people on Earth are going to affect their environment more than less than a billion people will affect their environment and it hasn't been all that long ago that we have that less than a billion people.

Obviously. But that doesn't change the extreme likelihood that human GHG emissions have been and will continue to alter the world's climate.

The question is though, whether even seven billion people on Earth are affecting the climate suficiently to be a cause for alarm. The evidence just isn't there. The computer models trying to make the case have been wrong again and again and again.

The evidence IS there. Of the scientists YOU ASKED to study this issue; and that for several decades HAVE BEEN studying this issue, 97% are convinced that human GHG emissions are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced and a similarly large proportion of them believe that warming presents a real and significant threat to humanity. There are a great deal of evidence that have nothing at all to do with models: Temperature histories of air, land and water, melting snow, glacier, ice sheet and shelf, satellite measurements of the ToA energy imbalance, change after change after change in temperature-driven plant and animal patterns. You keep saying the evidence isn't there but that statement is demonstrably false. Neither is it true that all the hundreds off GCMs that verify the existence and predominance of anthropogenic global warming have failed. It is a fact that NO climate model that does not assume AGW is taking place can even approach reproducing the last 150 years of global temperature observations

So it is quite good sense and practical logic and reason to believe that the effort to control people through exchange of carbon credits will have miniscule affect on much of anything other than to relieve us of more of our money while a few clever opportunists are greatly enriched, rob us of more of our liberties while putting more power into the hands of people who likely do not have our best interests at heart.

No, it make no sense and defies all logic and reason. Carbon trading is intended to have an effect on carbon emissions. No one is expecting individuals to do much trading; it will be demesne of corporations and energy utilities. Your repeated conjecture that efforts to reduce human GHG emissions are just a scheme by the unscrupulous to garner money and power is simply unsupported by the facts and not suggested by ANY evidence you've presented here. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Our Constitution allows our government to make any law it sees fit as long as it falls within the Constitution's restraints. If you can show that carbon taxes or carbon trading schemes violate the Constitution, I suggest you do so. Till then, you cannot complain about laws if you choose to live in a nation ruled by laws. It's the way things work.

I pray for the day that you Aussies and the whole educated and common sense world will appreciate that your new leader has it right for now. He may be as bad as you think on eveything else--I don't know--but on this issue he really is doing the right thing.

I don't think it matters any more who is in charge or what they do. It is too late. The human race just isn't smart enough to have realized the risk they faced or to take the measures they needed to take to forestall this problem. By 2100, global temperatures will be well beyond the 2C line in the sand. Our coastal regions will be flooding, the sea will be dying from acidification, drinking water will be at a premium in much of the world, species will be going extinct at a rate not seen in a million years and there will be absolutely no hope of turning things around.

If you're still around, my children and their children can thank you for the efforts you've made today. They'll be so grateful that their predecessors were never hamstrung with odious carbon trading schemes. Well worth it. WELL worth it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

 

[Foxfyre]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

But even if some AGW exists, there is yet no empirical or scientific evidence that it is causing any negative issues for the world's populations. We know the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now and the plant and animal life that lived on it thrived. We know that the warmer climates have been far more beneficial to more species than have the mini 'ice ages' or full ice ages. And obviously we can't expect seven billion people to just stop living their lives--most especially when it those who are doing the best job of protecting their environment who are being expected to be the people doing even more of it and the worst polluters are being given a pass.

That alone should tell us that the goal is not to reduce CO2 and other green house gasses but is rather to put more and more people under authoritarian rule.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Yes, it does. Climate has always changed and will continue to do so. Our opinions about the causes for climate change differ, certainly. I am not arrogant and self-centered enough to believe humanity can either cause significant change, and more importantly, that we have the ability to stop climate change from occurring.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Yes it does. All the time. As climae change has existed since the Earth's atmosphere was created. And because of inevitable changing conditions, I do think it merits study and discussion and informed policy that helps the people on Earth have time to plan for and adapt to those changing conditions.

And it is a near certainty that seven billion of people on Earth are going to affect their environment more than less than a billion people will affect their environment and it hasn't been all that long ago that we have that less than a billion people.

The question is though, whether even seven billion people on Earth are affecting the climate suficiently to be a cause for alarm. The evidence just isn't there. The computer models trying to make the case have been wrong again and again and again.

So it is quite good sense and practical logic and reason to believe that the effort to control people through exchange of carbon credits will have miniscule affect on much of anything other than to relieve us of more of our money while a few clever opportunists are greatly enriched, rob us of more of our liberties while putting more power into the hands of people who likely do not have our best interests at heart.

I pray for the day that you Aussies and the whole educated and common sense world will appreciate that your new leader has it right for now. He may be as bad as you think on eveything else--I don't know--but on this issue he really is doing the right thing.

Agreed.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way. You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation. I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.
Thanks in advance for improving my world.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

But even if some AGW exists, there is yet no empirical or scientific evidence that it is causing any negative issues for the world's populations. We know the Earth has been much warmer in the past than it is now and the plant and animal life that lived on it thrived. We know that the warmer climates have been far more beneficial to more species than have the mini 'ice ages' or full ice ages. And obviously we can't expect seven billion people to just stop living their lives--most especially when it those who are doing the best job of protecting their environment who are being expected to be the people doing even more of it and the worst polluters are being given a pass.

That alone should tell us that the goal is not to reduce CO2 and other green house gasses but is rather to put more and more people under authoritarian rule.

Hence why AGW nutters are constantly railroaded by actualy science. I've had to do this with my own friends for years. They will post some BS like the policymaker report on ocean acidification that came out yesterday that asserts all kinds of conjecture, adn i will have to turn them over to scientifically peer reviewed informtaion on the topic. Making the policymaker report erroneous at best, adn deliberately agenda driven at worst.

Does this actually sway them from their belief in AGW as a be all end all?

of course not. This is religion to them ,not science. All theinformation in the world will not disway a true believer.

 

[mamooth]

I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way. You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation.

So now you're asking me to kill you?

That is the logical conclusion of your challenge. Denialists tend to be destructive to the planet and to humanity for multiple reasons. Hence, if any humans are to be culled, it makes sense to start with the most worthless and destructive, the denialists.

However, nobody wants to kill anyone. At least nobody here on the reason-based side. But if denialists take the opposite position and start demanding that people to be eliminated, then they themselves obviously should be the first in line.

 

[Abraham3]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

What explains why 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid? They're stupendous sense of humor!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

What explains why 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid? They're stupendous sense of humor!

There is no 97% consensus. That paper from the consensus project was already debunked by a peer reviewed paper. The actual consensus found was .3%.

You're welcome. Let me know if you need help linking up to the peer reviewed paper that shatters Cooks false claims.