Kyoto deal loses four big nations May 29, 2011



DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

Advertisement: Story continues below Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday's G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

I guess its up to us BIG guys to keep this ball rolling!

Good show!!

Now WE need to do likewise.

This scam has gone quite far enough.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh no I guess they know climate change is bogus as well. Stupid Australian labor party. You dont get China included in actual cuts, then the argument of doom and gloom is just BS.

Guess we idiots were right all along. After all, these countries are 'REPUTABLE' arent they.

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers.

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 7:50pm:

I guess its up to us BIG guys to keep this ball rolling!

Yes, Australia must don its cape and wear their undies on the outside, for it will be Australia once again that will save the world!

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers.

I don't propose to argue who is right & who is wrong now, although I believe there is sufficient information to make Climate Change credible.

Now, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?  

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers. I don't propose to argue who is right & who is wrong now, although I believe there is sufficient information to make Climate Change credible. Now, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?   So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

COME ON EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT.. TAXING SOPMETHING CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A SAFE BET TO CURE GW......

ONLY TRUE BLUE IDOTS WOULD BELIEVE THAT... SINCE WHEN DID ROAD TAX FIX OUR ROADS??????


THE ONLY THING THAT WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF AND I MEAN BIG IF... THE SCIENCE IS CORRECT..


IS TO CLOSE THE COAL MINES YESTERDAY..

now you are talking baby....lets do it.. lets show the world how big we are.....well???????????????????????????????????????????? how concerned we are!

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?[/b] In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"???

the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans

Maqqa wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:07pm: So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?[/b] In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"??? the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans

No, it's you saying that!

As I said earlier tonight & on many previous ocassions -

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

What I said, was -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

Let me give you a hint -
If I am wrong and proper Global mitigation proceeds , then it may reduce Global GDP by say 5% and the Recession we had to have will be worse than it should have been.

If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die!

I've made my choice!

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:07pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:40pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers. I don't propose to argue who is right & who is wrong now, although I believe there is sufficient information to make Climate Change credible. Now, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?   So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? COME ON EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT.. TAXING SOPMETHING CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A SAFE BET TO CURE GW...... ONLY TRUE BLUE IDOTS WOULD BELIEVE THAT... SINCE WHEN DID ROAD TAX FIX OUR ROADS?????? THE ONLY THING THAT WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF AND I MEAN BIG IF... THE SCIENCE IS CORRECT.. IS TO CLOSE THE COAL MINES YESTERDAY.. now you are talking baby....lets do it.. lets show the world how big we are.....well???????????????????????????????????????????? how concerned we are!

Apparently, you have not read my many posts, where I have disagreed with both a Carbon Tax and an ETS?

There are ways to do what needs to be done, but neither the Carbon Tax or an ETS, will achieve what is needed, in an appropriate way!

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:17pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:07pm: So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?[/b] In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"??? the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans No, it's you saying that! As I said earlier tonight & on many previous ocassions - perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! What I said, was - So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? Let me give you a hint - If I am wrong and proper Global mitigation proceeds , then it may reduce Global GDP by say 5% and the Recession we had to have will be worse than it should have been. If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die! I've made my choice!

not IF you are wrong but it's a matter of YOU ARE wrong

You are wrong because of your inability to give a YES/NO answer to the question of

Will an Australian Carbon Tax reduce global temperature?

Maqqa wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 10:59pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:55pm: Maqqa wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:17pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:07pm: So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?[/b] In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"??? the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans No, it's you saying that! As I said earlier tonight & on many previous ocassions - perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! What I said, was - So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? Let me give you a hint - If I am wrong and proper Global mitigation proceeds , then it may reduce Global GDP by say 5% and the Recession we had to have will be worse than it should have been. If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die! I've made my choice! not IF you are wrong but it's a matter of YOU ARE wrong You are wrong because of your inability to give a YES/NO answer to the question of Will an Australian Carbon Tax reduce global temperature?

You truely are as useful as tits on a bull!

In the post immediately above your last post, was the following, from me -


perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Apparently, you have not read my many posts, where I have disagreed with both a Carbon Tax and an ETS? There are ways to do what needs to be done, but neither the Carbon Tax or an ETS, will achieve what is needed, in an appropriate way!

I have also previously stated on many ocassions that neither a Carbon Tax or an ETS in Australia, will achieve anything, other than raising tax revenue & making money for insiders.

No, neither a Carbon Tax, nor an ETS will reduce Australian or Global Temperatures!  

Now we have dispensed with what won't work, we should look at what would work, which is legislated annual GHG reduction targets, backed by Tax Credits for achieving those targets & Tax Debits for not achieving the targets!

But even that won't work, if it only happens in Australia, it needs to be pretty much Global or at least 80% of the major Economies, whether they call themselves developed or developing countries and China, the USA & India would have to be included.


But, you already knew all of that, didn't you, because we've been on the same roundabout before and said the same things.

And, you do that purely to try to not answer the real questions, which are -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate.

If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die!

I've made my choice!  
Back to top    





if you believe that then you must also believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden thats all I can say..

humans.. whether you believe we started from algae.. an animal that crawled out of the water.dereived from monkeys..born out of the garden of eden...


we came from somewhere.... we, it, survived through millions of years of climate change... at one point for millions of years thats all that happened  CLIMATE CHANGE!... YES THE CLIMATE CHANGED!... my god who would have thought it.

progressiveslol wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 12:32am:

Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate.

I am over this topic prog... I really am.. its getting to the stage where its almost bizarre...may as well be debating ghosts..or aliens..

now we have those in the GRIP of PANIC>. saying its best we put this country on its knees... just in case..but they believe in the science..


yet still waiting to hear from one of them regarding closing the mines yesterday!

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 7:57am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 12:32am: Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate. I am over this topic prog... I really am.. its getting to the stage where its almost bizarre...may as well be debating ghosts..or aliens.. now we have those in the GRIP of PANIC>. saying its best we put this country on its knees... just in case..but they believe in the science.. yet still waiting to hear from one of them regarding closing the mines yesterday!

You wouldnt be the only one, but the debate has to be had because you know how far the scaremongering will get without the debate. With the debate still going, we have slowly found them out in their scaremongering.

You will have to put yourself out of the way and enjoy peace and let the debate pass you by because the debate is going to continue for many years in the future.

progressiveslol wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 8:07am:

cods wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 7:57am: progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 12:32am: Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate. I am over this topic prog... I really am.. its getting to the stage where its almost bizarre...may as well be debating ghosts..or aliens.. now we have those in the GRIP of PANIC>. saying its best we put this country on its knees... just in case..but they believe in the science.. yet still waiting to hear from one of them regarding closing the mines yesterday! You wouldnt be the only one, but the debate has to be had because you know how far the scaremongering will get without the debate. With the debate still going, we have slowly found them out in their scaremongering. You will have to put yourself out of the way and enjoy peace and let the debate pass you by because the debate is going to continue for many years in the future.

I hate to keep repeating myself........but the way to go


IS LETS HAVE AN ELECTION GET IT OVER AND DONE WITH...


if they vote for the TAX then we will have to suck it up and sit back and watch what happens...........if anything!..lol

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 7:54am:

If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die! I've made my choice!   Back to top     if you believe that then you must also believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden thats all I can say.. humans.. whether you believe we started from algae.. an animal that crawled out of the water.dereived from monkeys..born out of the garden of eden... we came from somewhere.... 1) we, it, survived through millions of years of climate change... 2) at one point for millions of years thats all that happened  CLIMATE CHANGE!... YES THE CLIMATE CHANGED!... my god who would have thought it.

A few observations -
1) Yes, we (humans) survived, by the "hair of our chinny chin chin".
Why? Because during the last Ice Age, we (humans) dwindled down to maybe a couple of thousand, before things (Climate) finally looked up and we survived!

Also, a small correction, we (humans) have only been around, in our current format (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, not millions.

2) No kidding, did you go to special school, to learn that one?
Actually, from our (human) perspective, nothing at all happened for well over 4.5 BILLION years, because we weren't here.
Also, I wasn't aware that one point, could last for millions of years?


Btw, you still haven't answered the question -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

And, nor has Maqqa! Your both the same, like that, avoiding the crucial questions?

Quote:

[A few observations -[b]1) Yes, we (humans) survived, by the "hair of our chinny chin chin". Why? Because during the last Ice Age, we (humans) dwindled down to maybe a couple of thousand, before things (Climate) finally looked up and we survived! Also, a small correction, we (humans) have only been around, in our current format (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, not millions.

Very good PN...however, to respond..
Humans DID survive (barely or not) the last Ice Age.....with no ability to modify our living condition, and no technology beyond flint tools and weapons, animal skins for clothes and only open fires for heat and light..

And our ancestors, although not entirely the same as our current species, went through other Glaciations with even less, and also survived..

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

cods wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 7:54am: If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die! I've made my choice!   Back to top     if you believe that then you must also believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden thats all I can say.. humans.. whether you believe we started from algae.. an animal that crawled out of the water.dereived from monkeys..born out of the garden of eden... we came from somewhere.... 1) we, it, survived through millions of years of climate change... 2) at one point for millions of years thats all that happened  CLIMATE CHANGE!... YES THE CLIMATE CHANGED!... my god who would have thought it. A few observations - 1) Yes, we (humans) survived, by the "hair of our chinny chin chin". Why? Because during the last Ice Age, we (humans) dwindled down to maybe a couple of thousand, before things (Climate) finally looked up and we survived! Also, a small correction, we (humans) have only been around, in our current format (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, not millions. 2) No kidding, did you go to special school, to learn that one? Actually, from our (human) perspective, nothing at all happened for well over 4.5 BILLION years, because we weren't here. Also, I wasn't aware that one point, could last for millions of years? Btw, you still haven't answered the question - So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? And, nor has Maqqa! Your both the same, like that, avoiding the crucial questions?

All of which reminds me of a story?

The Three Little Pigs

http://www.shol.com/agita/images/Beware.jpg

Once upon a time there were three little pigs and the time came for them to leave home and seek their fortunes.

Before they left, their mother told them " Whatever you do , do it the best that you can because that's the way to get along in the world.

The first little pig built his house out of straw because it was the easiest thing to do.

The second little pig built his house out of sticks. This was a little bit stronger than a straw house.

The third little pig built his house out of bricks.

One night the big bad wolf, who dearly loved to eat fat little piggies, came along and saw the first little pig in his house of straw. He said "Let me in, Let me in, little pig or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in!"

"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin", said the little pig.

But of course the wolf did blow the house in and ate the first little pig.

The wolf then came to the house of sticks.

"Let me in ,Let me in little pig or I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house in" "Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin", said the little pig. But the wolf blew that house in too, and ate the second little pig.


The wolf then came to the house of bricks.

" Let me in , let me in" cried the wolf

"Or I'll huff and I'll puff till I blow your house in"

"Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin" said the pigs.

Well, the wolf huffed and puffed but he could not blow down that brick house.

But the wolf was a sly old wolf and he climbed up on the roof to look for a way into the brick house.

http://www.shol.com/agita/images/wolf.gif

The little pig saw the wolf climb up on the roof and lit a roaring fire in the fireplace and placed on it a large kettle of water.

When the wolf finally found the hole in the chimney he crawled down and KERSPLASH right into that kettle of water and that was the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.

The next day the little pig invited his mother over . She said "You see it is just as I told you. The way to get along in the world is to do things as well as you can." Fortunately for that little pig, he learned that lesson. And he just lived happily ever after!

Link -
http://www.shol.com/agita/pigs.htm
==============================
A few observations -
1) Of course the 3 little piglets, were all Capitalist Pigs, in training?
2) The 2 fat little Capitalist Pigs, who didn't think  far enough ahead, got eaten, by the Big Bad Wolf, also known as C. C Wolf (Climate Change Wolf)
3) The Big Bad Wolf, like any self respecting Crook, will always look for the weakest link!
4) The third little Piggy knew there was someting beyond Capitalism Mk1 and that the wolves would always be knocking at his door.

So, this Piggy took the best advice available, at the time and built in brick (even though it cost a little more), to mitigate against the risks of the Wolf getting into the house and when the wolf went for the chimney, the Piggy went for back up plan 1 and fried that Climate Change Wolf in his own juices!


The moral of the story is, spend a little extra, mitigate against the likely risks, but have a back up plan and you can live happily ever after and avoid the Big Bad Climate Change Wolf!

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 1:55pm:

Quote: [A few observations -[b]1) Yes, we (humans) survived, by the "hair of our chinny chin chin". Why? Because during the last Ice Age, we (humans) dwindled down to maybe a couple of thousand, before things (Climate) finally looked up and we survived! Also, a small correction, we (humans) have only been around, in our current format (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, not millions. Very good PN...however, to respond.. Humans DID survive (barely or not) the last Ice Age.....with no ability to modify our living condition, and no technology beyond flint tools and weapons, animal skins for clothes and only open fires for heat and light.. And our ancestors, although not entirely the same as our current species, went through other Glaciations with even less, and also survived..

Yes, but there were a lot less of us (humans), back then!

Now, there are about 7 Billion of us, the stakes are a lot higher and not taking every mitigation step possible, is simply not good Public Policy!

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 2:04pm:

The moral of the story is, spend a little extra, mitigate against the likely risks, but have a back up plan and you can live happily ever after and avoid the Big Bad Climate Change Wolf!

We will be doing nothing of the sorts.

Humans contribute 3% of CO2 to a dynamic world with an environment that contributes 97%. NOT STATIC.

You want to what. Make it humans contribute 2.5% of CO2.

Let me tell you a couple of things. 3% is a number more likely to be used for a plus or minus 3% of our figures could be incorrect or a plus or minus 3% could be a fluctuation, but 3% is never ever used as THE contributing factor to anything as the 97% is the contributing factor.

So the useless non-contributing factor of 3% is to be turned into 2.5% and ruin countries economics for what?

The figure by the way is to go up from 3% slightly because of China, India ect

The carbon tax is BS end of story.

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 9:08am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 8:07am: cods wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 7:57am: progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 12:32am: Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate. I am over this topic prog... I really am.. its getting to the stage where its almost bizarre...may as well be debating ghosts..or aliens.. now we have those in the GRIP of PANIC>. saying its best we put this country on its knees... just in case..but they believe in the science.. yet still waiting to hear from one of them regarding closing the mines yesterday! You wouldnt be the only one, but the debate has to be had because you know how far the scaremongering will get without the debate. With the debate still going, we have slowly found them out in their scaremongering. You will have to put yourself out of the way and enjoy peace and let the debate pass you by because the debate is going to continue for many years in the future. I hate to keep repeating myself........but the way to go IS LETS HAVE AN ELECTION GET IT OVER AND DONE WITH... if they vote for the TAX then we will have to suck it up and sit back and watch what happens...........if anything!..lol

So, we have an election, every time a decision is required?

I thought that's why we elected Politicians?

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 2:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 1:55pm: Quote: [A few observations -[b]1) Yes, we (humans) survived, by the "hair of our chinny chin chin". Why? Because during the last Ice Age, we (humans) dwindled down to maybe a couple of thousand, before things (Climate) finally looked up and we survived! Also, a small correction, we (humans) have only been around, in our current format (homo sapiens) for about 200,000 years, not millions. Very good PN...however, to respond.. Humans DID survive (barely or not) the last Ice Age.....with no ability to modify our living condition, and no technology beyond flint tools and weapons, animal skins for clothes and only open fires for heat and light.. And our ancestors, although not entirely the same as our current species, went through other Glaciations with even less, and also survived.. Yes, but there were a lot less of us (humans), back then! Now, there are about 7 Billion of us, the stakes are a lot higher and not taking every mitigation step possible, is simply not good Public Policy!

Confucious say "Many hands make light work"..
And our skills at insulation and heating are a lot better..
Humans adapt, it's possibly our greatest talent...On top of that, there's no guarantee that changing to renewables will stop whats happening anyway...

As harsh as it sounds, if the species survives, it wouldn't matter if we lose a few, or a medium amount of people to changing conditions...

Maqqa wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 10:59pm:

not IF you are wrong but it's a matter of YOU ARE wrong You are wrong because of your inability to give a YES/NO answer to the question.

LOL.

This from someone who has NEVER, EVER given a YES/NO answer.

That must mean that you have never been right in your entire  message board career. Maqqa.

 :)

progressiveslol wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 2:14pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 2:04pm: The moral of the story is, spend a little extra, mitigate against the likely risks, but have a back up plan and you can live happily ever after and avoid the Big Bad Climate Change Wolf! We will be doing nothing of the sorts. Humans contribute 3% of CO2 to a dynamic world with an environment that contributes 97%. NOT STATIC. You want to what. Make it humans contribute 2.5% of CO2. Let me tell you a couple of things. 3% is a number more likely to be used for a plus or minus 3% of our figures could be incorrect or a plus or minus 3% could be a fluctuation, but 3% is never ever used as THE contributing factor to anything as the 97% is the contributing factor. So the useless non-contributing factor of 3% is to be turned into 2.5% and ruin countries economics for what? The figure by the way is to go up from 3% slightly because of China, India ect The carbon tax is BS end of story.

As I have repeatedly stated -
A Carbon Tax or ETS will not fix, what needs to be fixed!

Now we have dispensed with what won't work, we should look at what would work, which is legislated annual GHG reduction targets, backed by Tax Credits for achieving those targets & Tax Debits for not achieving the targets!

And, its all in OR all out!  

You & others, are effectively putting Billions of lives at risk, because you say the risk is small.

But, we know that small amounts can be lethal or can create wonders.

What I am saying is that we take a little from today, to try to protect future generations against an unmitigated disaster.

However, we have a history of not taking proper measures, as is shown by Peak Oil & the current Baby Boomer Bust, so I would suggest the future, may not be feeling too bright.

Lobo wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 2:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 10:59pm: not IF you are wrong but it's a matter of YOU ARE wrong You are wrong because of your inability to give a YES/NO answer to the question. LOL. This from someone who has NEVER, EVER given a YES/NO answer. That must mean that you have never been right in your entire  message board career. Maqqa.  :)

That would be correct!

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 2:34pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 2:14pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 2:04pm: The moral of the story is, spend a little extra, mitigate against the likely risks, but have a back up plan and you can live happily ever after and avoid the Big Bad Climate Change Wolf! We will be doing nothing of the sorts. Humans contribute 3% of CO2 to a dynamic world with an environment that contributes 97%. NOT STATIC. You want to what. Make it humans contribute 2.5% of CO2. Let me tell you a couple of things. 3% is a number more likely to be used for a plus or minus 3% of our figures could be incorrect or a plus or minus 3% could be a fluctuation, but 3% is never ever used as THE contributing factor to anything as the 97% is the contributing factor. So the useless non-contributing factor of 3% is to be turned into 2.5% and ruin countries economics for what? The figure by the way is to go up from 3% slightly because of China, India ect The carbon tax is BS end of story. As I have repeatedly stated - A Carbon Tax or ETS will not fix, what needs to be fixed! Now we have dispensed with what won't work, we should look at what would work, which is legislated annual GHG reduction targets, backed by Tax Credits for achieving those targets & Tax Debits for not achieving the targets! And, its all in OR all out!   You & others, are effectively putting Billions of lives at risk, because you say the risk is small. But, we know that small amounts can be lethal or can create wonders. What I am saying is that we take a little from today, to try to protect future generations against an unmitigated disaster. However, we have a history of not taking proper measures, as is shown by Peak Oil & the current Baby Boomer Bust, so I would suggest the future, may not be feeling too bright.

So what of the 3% of contributing factor, not THE contributing factor. What is that 3% suppose to go to, to counter THE contributing factor of 97%.

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 1:25pm:

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

And the answer is . . . who cares? The world is overpopulated anyway, perhaps the survivors will create a better world.

progressiveslol wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 12:32am:

Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate.

My thick headed nuffy friend, when will you realise that the debate is about WHAT ACTION TO TAKE, and not whether climate change is real or not?  If you learnt to actually read and comprehend you might understand that there are many reasons for why countries are pulling out, but NONE of the reasons are because they DENY man-made climate change.  Only fools are still arguing that one! ;D

USA - has $14 TRILLION in debt, and still recovering from a recession - they are in no position to look at changing their economic structure at this stage.  But they recognise that climate change is real.

As for the rest, if you read the article, you'd realise that they don't like Kyoto because it didn't do anythign about developing countries. They aren't signing on because of that, NOT because they don't believe in man made climate change.

You are a complete fool.  Your debate is useless.  Get over it and understand that what TYPE OF ACTION on MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE is what is being debated.  NOT IF IT IS REAL OR NOT.

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 12:29am:

Maqqa wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 10:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:55pm: Maqqa wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:17pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 9:07pm: So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?[/b] In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"??? the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans No, it's you saying that! As I said earlier tonight & on many previous ocassions - perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! What I said, was - So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem? Let me give you a hint - If I am wrong and proper Global mitigation proceeds , then it may reduce Global GDP by say 5% and the Recession we had to have will be worse than it should have been. If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die! I've made my choice! not IF you are wrong but it's a matter of YOU ARE wrong You are wrong because of your inability to give a YES/NO answer to the question of Will an Australian Carbon Tax reduce global temperature? You truely are as useful as tits on a bull! In the post immediately above your last post, was the following, from me - perceptions_now wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 10:00pm: Apparently, you have not read my many posts, where I have disagreed with both a Carbon Tax and an ETS? There are ways to do what needs to be done, but neither the Carbon Tax or an ETS, will achieve what is needed, in an appropriate way! I have also previously stated on many ocassions that neither a Carbon Tax or an ETS in Australia, will achieve anything, other than raising tax revenue & making money for insiders. No, neither a Carbon Tax, nor an ETS will reduce Australian or Global Temperatures!   Now we have dispensed with what won't work, we should look at what would work, which is legislated annual GHG reduction targets, backed by Tax Credits for achieving those targets & Tax Debits for not achieving the targets! But even that won't work, if it only happens in Australia, it needs to be pretty much Global or at least 80% of the major Economies, whether they call themselves developed or developing countries and China, the USA & India would have to be included. But, you already knew all of that, didn't you, because we've been on the same roundabout before and said the same things. And, you do that purely to try to not answer the real questions, which are - So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing? In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

Wrecking a nations economy because of possible outcomes of a questionable theory doesn't pass the common sense test.
The prophets of doom will need more than a good yarn for that considering that Australia could turn Amish tomorrow and it would make no difference.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 12:32am: Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate. My thick headed nuffy friend, when will you realise that the debate is about WHAT ACTION TO TAKE, and not whether climate change is real or not?  If you learnt to actually read and comprehend you might understand that there are many reasons for why countries are pulling out, but NONE of the reasons are because they DENY man-made climate change.  Only fools are still arguing that one! ;D USA - has $14 TRILLION in debt, and still recovering from a recession - they are in no position to look at changing their economic structure at this stage.  But they recognise that climate change is real. As for the rest, if you read the article, you'd realise that they don't like Kyoto because it didn't do anythign about developing countries. They aren't signing on because of that, NOT because they don't believe in man made climate change. You are a complete fool.  Your debate is useless.  Get over it and understand that what TYPE OF ACTION on MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE is what is being debated.  NOT IF IT IS REAL OR NOT.

ale - YOU have agreed humans cause climate change.
climate change has always happenned, well before henry ford was born

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:06am:

ale - YOU have agreed humans cause climate change. climate change has always happenned, well before henry ford was born

Ah, another one who just can't seem to work out how to read :(

Sprinty, or my fav nutty, you need to read the article, understand what it says, and then from there recognise that only the complete nuts are actually still arguing that man made climate change isn't real, while the rest of the world has moved on to debating how to deal with it.   Don't put yourself into the complete nuts category; you're not quite there yet.

Oh, this is the article written by leftys for leftys ?

much of which has been seriously questioned.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 10:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 12:32am: Who was it on this board that said the debate is over. lol looks like it is my debate evaline and all those big countries have decided to come to my debate. My thick headed nuffy friend, when will you realise that the debate is about WHAT ACTION TO TAKE, and not whether climate change is real or not?  If you learnt to actually read and comprehend you might understand that there are many reasons for why countries are pulling out, but NONE of the reasons are because they DENY man-made climate change.  Only fools are still arguing that one! ;D USA - has $14 TRILLION in debt, and still recovering from a recession - they are in no position to look at changing their economic structure at this stage.  But they recognise that climate change is real. As for the rest, if you read the article, you'd realise that they don't like Kyoto because it didn't do anythign about developing countries. They aren't signing on because of that, NOT because they don't believe in man made climate change. You are a complete fool.  Your debate is useless.  Get over it and understand that what TYPE OF ACTION on MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE is what is being debated.  NOT IF IT IS REAL OR NOT.

Wishful thinking nuffnuts

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:15am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:06am: ale - YOU have agreed humans cause climate change. climate change has always happenned, well before henry ford was born Ah, another one who just can't seem to work out how to read :( Sprinty, or my fav nutty, you need to read the article, understand what it says, and then from there recognise that only the complete nuts are actually still arguing that man made climate change isn't real, while the rest of the world has moved on to debating how to deal with it.   Don't put yourself into the complete nuts category; you're not quite there yet.

So how about you tell me about the 3% human CO2 being insigificant or not compared to the dynamic 97%. Remembering that 3% is more of a representation for a +/- statistical error, not a significant factor.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:39am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:15am: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:06am: ale - YOU have agreed humans cause climate change. climate change has always happenned, well before henry ford was born Ah, another one who just can't seem to work out how to read :( Sprinty, or my fav nutty, you need to read the article, understand what it says, and then from there recognise that only the complete nuts are actually still arguing that man made climate change isn't real, while the rest of the world has moved on to debating how to deal with it.   Don't put yourself into the complete nuts category; you're not quite there yet. So how about you tell me about the 3% human CO2 being insigificant or not compared to the dynamic 97%. Remembering that 3% is more of a representation for a +/- statistical error, not a significant factor.

;D ;D

Nutty, understand that debate is done for.  We've moved on to what type of action is needed.

Thanks for your input but! Very helpfull ;)

;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:45am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:39am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:15am: Sprintcyclist wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:06am: ale - YOU have agreed humans cause climate change. climate change has always happenned, well before henry ford was born Ah, another one who just can't seem to work out how to read :( Sprinty, or my fav nutty, you need to read the article, understand what it says, and then from there recognise that only the complete nuts are actually still arguing that man made climate change isn't real, while the rest of the world has moved on to debating how to deal with it.   Don't put yourself into the complete nuts category; you're not quite there yet. So how about you tell me about the 3% human CO2 being insigificant or not compared to the dynamic 97%. Remembering that 3% is more of a representation for a +/- statistical error, not a significant factor. ;D ;D Nutty, understand that debate is done for.  We've moved on to what type of action is needed. Thanks for your input but! Very helpfull ;) ;D ;D

I didnt think so.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:29am:

Oh, this is the article written by leftys for leftys ? much of which has been seriously questioned.

what has been seriously questioned?

See, anyone foolish enough to actually subscribe to conspiracy theories will question anything and everything.  No point ever talking to someone with that kind of mind.

As for the article, I'm sure you'll agree that the SMH is not a lefty newspaper.

:)

;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:48am:

I didnt think so.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bothered to read the article yet? Or are you still hoping someone of any influence is actually listening to what you've got to say?

So, what action should we take on climate change? Direct Action? Or a Market mechanism?

;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:51am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:48am: I didnt think so. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Bothered to read the article yet? Or are you still hoping someone of any influence is actually listening to what you've got to say? So, what action should we take on climate change? Direct Action? Or a Market mechanism? ;D

hehe is that you, the person with influence. No-one here has infuence. I am debating and if you dont want to be a part of it due to lack of knowledge, then so be it.

perceptions_now wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 12:29am:

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

1 your scenario = countless trillions.
2 no problem scenario = zero

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 11:55am:

hehe is that you, the person with influence. No-one here has infuence. I am debating and if you dont want to be a part of it due to lack of knowledge, then so be it.

More like no mainstream leader is listening to you. Only those in the shadows; perhaps Pauline can fight your cause for you?

;D ;D

As for the latter part, like I already explained: there is no point regressing over past debates when the country has moved on.  What is the better action to take; Direct Action or a Carbon Tax?  THAT is the debate :)

;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 12:01pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 11:55am: hehe is that you, the person with influence. No-one here has infuence. I am debating and if you dont want to be a part of it due to lack of knowledge, then so be it. More like no mainstream leader is listening to you. Only those in the shadows; perhaps Pauline can fight your cause for you? ;D ;D As for the latter part, like I already explained: there is no point regressing over past debates when the country has moved on.  What is the better action to take; Direct Action or a Carbon Tax?  THAT is the debate :) ;D ;D

Maybe you should let the big boys have the debate and you stand aside. You are obviously not up on the debates in Australia. There are 2 debates. Your pussy debate is one, mine is the other.

Go play with your debate then as I debate mine.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 12:04pm:

Maybe you should let the big boys have the debate and you stand aside. You are obviously not up on the debates in Australia. There are 2 debates. Your pussy debate is one, mine is the other. Go play with your debate then as I debate mine.

;D ;D ;D

Omg I love loonies like you!  You can continue talking to yourself all you want.  Just remember that no one is actually listening, and your view is now completely redundant. Just like you.  

Enjoy debating yourself!  

The most unintelligent, dumb-arse person would understand the basic mathematics; that reducing 0.004% of 1.4% carbon emissions on a global scale, will not reduce the planets temperature by even 0.000001 degree.

Has anyone actually heard Gillard say whether this is a carbon dioxide tax or a carbon monoxide tax or a tax on both?

She is such a slimy maggot, that you need to peg her down on the details, but then she lies her way out of it.

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 12:06pm:

The most unintelligent, dumb-arse person would understand the basic mathematics; that reducing 0.004% of 1.4% carbon emissions on a global scale, will not reduce the planets temperature by even 0.000001 degree. Has anyone actually heard Gillard say whether this is a carbon dioxide tax or a carbon monoxide tax or a tax on both? She is such a slimy maggot, that you need to peg her down on the details, but then she lies her way out of it.

Globally they want to take the insignificant 3% of human carbon output to what. To 2.5% perhaps. Still insignificant regardless of which way you look at it.

We all know that australia will do nothing for temperatures except blow our economy. We are working with complete idiots from gang-green labor.

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 12:06pm:

The most unintelligent, dumb-arse person would understand the basic mathematics; that reducing 0.004% of 1.4% carbon emissions on a global scale, will not reduce the planets temperature by even 0.000001 degree.

So that means the majority of Australians are unintelligent, dumb-arse people.  And the majority of our economists, scientists, politicians, business leaders. Only you're the smart one, cullnuff!! You and Pauline. Geniuses. Hiding your true gifts behind the facade of trolley pushing.

As for your other nonsense: Considering that the tax is on 1000 most carbon-intensive companies, if they happen to produce both monoxide and dioxide, than BOTH are taxed.

Unfortunately, Australians are getting an international reputation of being rather backward and being dumb-arses. I believe the current international analogy of Aussies is called: “the last crumb left of the table.”

You would have to be mentally challenged to believe that reducing carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions of 0.004% of a total 1.4% on a planetary scale is going to significantly reduce global warming.

When in fact these paltry emission reductions over the next 18 years won’t even reduce global warming on a planetary scale by 0.00001 degree.  

Are some of you people that stupid and frightened that you would believe in anything anyone tells you, because the mathematics Gillard is throwing at you doesn’t add up.

You people are being conned: even if ALL Australia stopped ALL carbon emissions 1.4% tomorrow, the reduction in planetary global warming would only be reduced by 0.0078 degrees.

So if bring in this new carbon tax is not going to reduce global warming by anything more than 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years, then what are we bringing it in?

Don’t we have a Government that can offer a better alternative than reducing the planets temperature by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years?

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 1:32pm:

Unfortunately, Australians are getting an international reputation of being rather backward and being dumb-arses. I believe the current international analogy of Aussies is called: “the last crumb left of the table.” You would have to be mentally challenged to believe that reducing carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions of 0.004% of a total 1.4% on a planetary scale is going to significantly reduce global warming. When in fact these paltry emission reductions over the next 18 years won’t even reduce global warming on a planetary scale by 0.00001 degree.   Are some of you people that stupid and frightened that you would believe in anything anyone tells you, because the mathematics Gillard is throwing at you doesn’t add up. You people are being conned: even if ALL Australia stopped ALL carbon emissions 1.4% tomorrow, the reduction in planetary global warming would only be reduced by 0.0078 degrees. So if bring in this new carbon tax is not going to reduce global warming by anything more than 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years, then what are we bringing it in? Don’t we have a Government that can offer a better alternative than reducing the planets temperature by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years?

And this type of thinking is exactly WHY you give Australia an international reputation for being backwards and full of dumb asses.

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 12:06pm:

The most unintelligent, dumb-arse person would understand the basic mathematics; that reducing 0.004% of 1.4% carbon emissions on a global scale, will not reduce the planets temperature by even 0.000001 degree. Has anyone actually heard Gillard say whether this is a carbon dioxide tax or a carbon monoxide tax or a tax on both? She is such a slimy maggot, that you need to peg her down on the details, but then she lies her way out of it.

the only true way to lower our carbon emmissions

is to close down all mining...


will she do it... nup she thinks taxing all 22million of us will do something... how bloody infantile is that thinking...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:38pm:

culldav wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 1:32pm: Unfortunately, Australians are getting an international reputation of being rather backward and being dumb-arses. I believe the current international analogy of Aussies is called: “the last crumb left of the table.” You would have to be mentally challenged to believe that reducing carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions of 0.004% of a total 1.4% on a planetary scale is going to significantly reduce global warming. When in fact these paltry emission reductions over the next 18 years won’t even reduce global warming on a planetary scale by 0.00001 degree.   Are some of you people that stupid and frightened that you would believe in anything anyone tells you, because the mathematics Gillard is throwing at you doesn’t add up. You people are being conned: even if ALL Australia stopped ALL carbon emissions 1.4% tomorrow, the reduction in planetary global warming would only be reduced by 0.0078 degrees. So if bring in this new carbon tax is not going to reduce global warming by anything more than 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years, then what are we bringing it in? Don’t we have a Government that can offer a better alternative than reducing the planets temperature by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years? And this type of thinking is exactly WHY you give Australia an international reputation for being backwards and full of dumb asses.

I know you are only a trolley collector, but the mathematics is not faulty; ask any year 9 student.

Sorry sweetheart, but in this instance you are the dumb-arse; and you prove the point “fart-in-the-wind”  by your constantly asinine comments that not ALL refugees and migrants that are allowed into Australia are intelligent.  

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 2:38pm: culldav wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 1:32pm: Unfortunately, Australians are getting an international reputation of being rather backward and being dumb-arses. I believe the current international analogy of Aussies is called: “the last crumb left of the table.” You would have to be mentally challenged to believe that reducing carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions of 0.004% of a total 1.4% on a planetary scale is going to significantly reduce global warming. When in fact these paltry emission reductions over the next 18 years won’t even reduce global warming on a planetary scale by 0.00001 degree.   Are some of you people that stupid and frightened that you would believe in anything anyone tells you, because the mathematics Gillard is throwing at you doesn’t add up. You people are being conned: even if ALL Australia stopped ALL carbon emissions 1.4% tomorrow, the reduction in planetary global warming would only be reduced by 0.0078 degrees. So if bring in this new carbon tax is not going to reduce global warming by anything more than 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years, then what are we bringing it in? Don’t we have a Government that can offer a better alternative than reducing the planets temperature by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years? And this type of thinking is exactly WHY you give Australia an international reputation for being backwards and full of dumb asses. I know you are only a trolley collector, but the mathematics is not faulty; ask any year 9 student. Sorry sweetheart, but in this instance you are the dumb-arse; and you prove the point “fart-in-the-wind”  by your constantly asinine comments that not ALL refugees and migrants that are allowed into Australia are intelligent.

Looking from this side, it looks like people overseas are mindless drones who take the word of anyone they remotely like or trust.

I like the 'trust but verify', myself. Maybe people from overseas can grab a little of that gem of a saying.

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:47pm:

I know you are only a trolley collector, but the mathematics is not faulty; ask any year 9 student. Sorry sweetheart, but in this instance you are the dumb-arse; and you prove the point “fart-in-the-wind”  by your constantly asinine comments that not ALL refugees and migrants that are allowed into Australia are intelligent.

I realise that you are a little backwards and completey obsolete of any individual thought, but I hope you have some knowledge about how systems work.  Understanding this will hopefully allow you to realise that the world in itself is one huge organisational system, and for it to function properly all the sub-systems, regardless of their size, should do so too.

Further to this, saying that Australia's 1.4% is insignificant leaves insult on Australia for suggesting the country has no influence in world affairs what so ever and is just some dirt on the bottom of the world's shoe.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:52pm:

Looking from this side, it looks like people overseas are mindless drones who take the word of anyone they remotely like or trust. I like the 'trust but verify', myself. Maybe people from overseas can grab a little of that gem of a saying.

Yep, cods, cullnuff and progressivenuff are the only free thinkers in the world.  Oh what a laugh!  To think that you three actually believe you have something relevant to say!  Even if that "relevant" matter has been completely disregarded by all who can actually formulate a sentence.  ;D ;D  

;D ;D

What a hoot!! What an absolute hoot!!  The three musketeers! Here to save the world from "mindless drones."  hahahaha!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 7:50pm:

Kyoto deal loses four big nations May 29, 2011 DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said. The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9. Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. Advertisement: Story continues below Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements. But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said. They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts. At last Thursday's G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said. The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

It shows that human short term greed far outweighs longterm concerns.
There is no hope for this planet.
Just feel glad that you were born in good times & don't worry
about the catastrophe that awaits others.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:56pm:

culldav wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 2:47pm: I know you are only a trolley collector, but the mathematics is not faulty; ask any year 9 student. Sorry sweetheart, but in this instance you are the dumb-arse; and you prove the point “fart-in-the-wind”  by your constantly asinine comments that not ALL refugees and migrants that are allowed into Australia are intelligent.   I realise that you are a little backwards and completey obsolete of any individual thought, but I hope you have some knowledge about how systems work.  Understanding this will hopefully allow you to realise that the world in itself is one huge organisational system, and for it to function properly all the sub-systems, regardless of their size, should do so too. Further to this, saying that Australia's 1.4% is insignificant leaves insult on Australia for suggesting the country has no influence in world affairs what so ever and is just some dirt on the bottom of the world's shoe.

This so called sub-system is 1.4% of 3% total global carbon dioxide output.

Then you want to cut 5% of the 1.4%, that is 1.4% of what is 3% of total global carbon output. How stupid can you be to call that a sub-system. That is not a sub-system, it is statistically insignificant.

cods wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:42pm:

culldav wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 12:06pm: The most unintelligent, dumb-arse person would understand the basic mathematics; that reducing 0.004% of 1.4% carbon emissions on a global scale, will not reduce the planets temperature by even 0.000001 degree. Has anyone actually heard Gillard say whether this is a carbon dioxide tax or a carbon monoxide tax or a tax on both? She is such a slimy maggot, that you need to peg her down on the details, but then she lies her way out of it. the only true way to lower our carbon emmissions is to close down all mining... will she do it... nup she thinks taxing all 22million of us will do something... how bloody infantile is that thinking...

The thing is Cods, Bob and his bitch have conned the frightened and stupid people into believing this carbon tax is the best thing since sliced bread, and they have fallen for it hook, line and sinker without even questioning the mathematics or the rationale behind the tax.

They must be clapping their hands with glee at the ease in which they have conned some of the Australian people into believing that by reducing carbon emissions of 0.0004% of a total of 1.4% over the next 18 years that will reduce global temperatures by an incredible 0.000001% will actually help save the planet.

The intellectually sad thing about all this is that some individuals cannot comprehend the difference between the con-job and the reality of what must happen.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 2:38pm:

culldav wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 1:32pm: Unfortunately, Australians are getting an international reputation of being rather backward and being dumb-arses. I believe the current international analogy of Aussies is called: “the last crumb left of the table.” You would have to be mentally challenged to believe that reducing carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions of 0.004% of a total 1.4% on a planetary scale is going to significantly reduce global warming. When in fact these paltry emission reductions over the next 18 years won’t even reduce global warming on a planetary scale by 0.00001 degree.   Are some of you people that stupid and frightened that you would believe in anything anyone tells you, because the mathematics Gillard is throwing at you doesn’t add up. You people are being conned: even if ALL Australia stopped ALL carbon emissions 1.4% tomorrow, the reduction in planetary global warming would only be reduced by 0.0078 degrees. So if bring in this new carbon tax is not going to reduce global warming by anything more than 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years, then what are we bringing it in? Don’t we have a Government that can offer a better alternative than reducing the planets temperature by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years? And this type of thinking is exactly WHY you give Australia an international reputation for being backwards and full of dumb asses.

Actually, what gives Australia that reputation is the Government and some of the people thinking that a Carbon Tax will affect our emissions at all, and that any changes to our emissions will even be noticeable in world Co2 levels...

I heard a quote on the radio the other day from a climate scientist..

He said that "Australia could sink beneath the ocean, and it wouldn't make any difference to Co2 levels"..

And no, we don't have all that much influence on World affairs....Almost half the people in the world don't even know where Australia IS, or the name of our capital city..

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:02pm:

This so called sub-system is 1.4% of 3% total carbon dioxide output. Then you want to cut 5% of the 1.4% of the 3% of total carbon output. How stupid can you be to call that a sub-system. That is not a sub-system, it is statistically insignificant.

Interesting.  An oil filter in a car is 0.3% of all of its components, yet without it the car can easily break down.

And Australia is a sub-system within the world's organisational system. As a "network engineer" or so you claim, I would've thought you can work that one out. Too bad I was expecting way too much from you :(  I apologise.  

Anyway, why are we having this discussion? When will you realise that part of the debate is over? We've moved on man!  Let's talk about WHAT TYPE OF ACTION TO TAKE: DIRECT OR CARBON TAX?

;D ;D ;D ;D

You silly old bugger.  

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:05pm:

Actually, what gives Australia that reputation is the Government and some of the people thinking that a Carbon Tax will affect our emissions at all, and that any changes to our emissions will even be noticeable in world Co2 levels... I heard a quote on the radio the other day from a climate scientist.. He said that "Australia could sink beneath the ocean, and it wouldn't make any difference to Co2 levels"..

No one with at least half a brain thinks that a carbon tax in Australia will bring down world emissions on its own, or was designed to bring down world emissions, as a whole, on its own.  But its a step forward for us in contributing to the world and standing side by side with other countries.  Not only that, but despite what people may think, we as a nation can be influential, especially in our region.   Us doing something means it's a closer step towards getting others to do something. And so on.  

And this is where the debate gets so completely skewed by the nuff nuff denialists who have NO UNDERSTANDING apart from their own greed.  And it is greed. Whether you like it or not.  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:05pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:02pm: This so called sub-system is 1.4% of 3% total carbon dioxide output. Then you want to cut 5% of the 1.4% of the 3% of total carbon output. How stupid can you be to call that a sub-system. That is not a sub-system, it is statistically insignificant. Interesting.  An oil filter in a car is 0.3% of all of its components, yet without it the car can easily break down. And Australia is a sub-system within the world's organisational system. As a "network engineer" or so you claim, I would've thought you can work that one out. Too bad I was expecting way too much from you :(  I apologise.   Anyway, why are we having this discussion? When will you realise that part of the debate is over? We've moved on man!  Let's talk about WHAT TYPE OF ACTION TO TAKE: DIRECT OR CARBON TAX? ;D ;D ;D ;D You silly old bugger.

That is a component and is significant. Nice try but come again.

What you should have talked about, is the fluid going through the oil filter. Lose 3% of the fluid, gain 3% of the fluid. Wow nothing happens. That is because 3% can best be used as an insignificant rate of error.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:08pm:

That is a component and is significant. Nice try but come again.

Going back to nonsensical 1 liners? ok.

:) ;D ;D ;D  I enjoy seeing how it seems you now must have the final word, and yet each time you try and do it somehow it just shows how dumb and uninformed you really are.  Congrats.  

Want to try again? Feel free.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:10pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:08pm: That is a component and is significant. Nice try but come again. Going back to nonsensical 1 liners? ok. :) ;D ;D ;D  I enjoy seeing how it seems you now must have the final word, and yet each time you try and do it somehow it just shows how dumb and uninformed you really are.  Congrats.   Want to try again? Feel free.

Thank you. I see you cant work it out. Comparing a component to a dynamic fluid, is rather silly.

Yes. It will be a fine contribution by Australia to reduce it carbon foot print by 0.0004% which will reduce the planets global warming by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years.

I’m sure the history books will record this much anticipated first step by Australia with as much enthusiasm as watching a goat shyte grapes.

More likely the history books will ask why we introduced a carbon tax when it wasn’t going to solve a problem.

LOL  LOL  LOL

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:12pm:

Thank you. I see you cant work it out. Comparing a component to a dynamic fluid, is rather silly.

;D ;D ;D

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG Hilarious!  Mate, you need to do champagne comedy!

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Yes. It will be a fine contribution by Australia to reduce it carbon foot print by 0.0004% which will reduce the planets global warming by 0.00001 degree over the next 18 years. I’m sure the history books will record this much anticipated first step by Australia with as much enthusiasm as watching a goat shyte grapes. More likely the history books will ask why we introduced a carbon tax when it wasn’t going to solve a problem. LOL  LOL  LOL

Wow, talk about a tendency to simply repeat without even reading what anyone says.  Who's brainwashed now?  

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:30pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:12pm: Thank you. I see you cant work it out. Comparing a component to a dynamic fluid, is rather silly. ;D ;D ;D OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG Hilarious!  Mate, you need to do champagne comedy!

Carbon dioxide is a gas fool, not a component. OMG OMG  ::)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:05pm: Actually, what gives Australia that reputation is the Government and some of the people thinking that a Carbon Tax will affect our emissions at all, and that any changes to our emissions will even be noticeable in world Co2 levels... I heard a quote on the radio the other day from a climate scientist.. He said that "Australia could sink beneath the ocean, and it wouldn't make any difference to Co2 levels".. No one with at least half a brain thinks that a carbon tax in Australia will bring down world emissions on its own, or was designed to bring down world emissions, as a whole, on its own.  But its a step forward for us in contributing to the world and standing side by side with other countries.  Not only that, but despite what people may think, we as a nation can be influential, especially in our region.   Us doing something means it's a closer step towards getting others to do something. And so on.   And this is where the debate gets so completely skewed by the nuff nuff denialists who have NO UNDERSTANDING apart from their own greed.  And it is greed. Whether you like it or not.

And irrespective of personal belief in ACC, the fact still remains that the Carbon Tax idea is about regaining a budget surplus and won't have any effect on Co2 emissions..

The 'big polluters' will pass the costs on to the consumers, so they don't lose any profit, the Government will then compensate the consumers for the increased costs, so the consumers don't lose out either...

It's not even a case of 'robbing peter to pay paul'...it's 'robbing peter, to pay peter'.....all that happens will be the money moves around, and ends up back where it started..

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:36pm:

Carbon dioxide is a gas fool, not a component. OMG OMG  ::)

Keep guessing on what I mean. I told ya, your comprehension is just not quite there!

hahahahaah!  You really should do champagne comedy! You are beyond hilarious!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:36pm: Carbon dioxide is a gas fool, not a component. OMG OMG  ::) Keep guessing on what I mean. I told ya, your comprehension is just not quite there! hahahahaah!  You really should do champagne comedy! You are beyond hilarious! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

In your own world lol. You dont even know the difference between fluids and components. OMG OMG hilarious  ::)  ::)  ::)

The lack of action shows that human short term greed far outweighs longterm concerns.
There is no hope for this planet.
Just feel glad that you were born in good times & don't worry
about the catastrophe that awaits others.

Bobby. wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:49pm:

The lack of action shows that human short term greed far outweighs longterm concerns. There is no hope for this planet. Just feel glad that you were born in good times & don't worry about the catastrophe that awaits others.

Fearmongering will get you somewhere short term until people wake up.

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:42pm:

And irrespective of personal belief in ACC, the fact still remains that the Carbon Tax idea is about regaining a budget surplus and won't have any effect on Co2 emissions.. The 'big polluters' will pass the costs on to the consumers, so they don't lose any profit, the Government will then compensate the consumers for the increased costs, so the consumers don't lose out either... It's not even a case of 'robbing peter to pay paul'...it's 'robbing peter, to pay peter'.....all that happens will be the money moves around, and ends up back where it started..

How is it about regaining a budget surplus when it is a tax and spend tax??  There is no bottomline revenue benefit to the government with the carbon tax.

And what your saying is almost completey bogus. Sure some will people will be stubbon and just let it be as it is.  Otherwise will realise they are getting free money from teh government and attempt to save some of it, thus reducing their electricity use. Ultimately it's a psychological mindset that has worked wonders in the past.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:36pm: Carbon dioxide is a gas fool, not a component. OMG OMG  ::) Keep guessing on what I mean. I told ya, your comprehension is just not quite there! hahahahaah!  You really should do champagne comedy! You are beyond hilarious! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D In your own world lol. You dont even know the difference between fluids and components. OMG OMG hilarious  ::)  ::)  ::)

You don't even know what I was talking about.  Talk about comprehension!  

LOL I guess it's true: as you get older those brain cells just start to fade away... unless of course you never had any to begin with!  :( Poor progressivenuff. :(

Champagne Comedy, every Wednesday. You should attend and perform.  Just be yourself. People will find it hilarious.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 3:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:43pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 3:36pm: Carbon dioxide is a gas fool, not a component. OMG OMG  ::) Keep guessing on what I mean. I told ya, your comprehension is just not quite there! hahahahaah!  You really should do champagne comedy! You are beyond hilarious! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D In your own world lol. You dont even know the difference between fluids and components. OMG OMG hilarious  ::)  ::)  ::) You don't even know what I was talking about.  Talk about comprehension!   LOL I guess it's true: as you get older those brain cells just start to fade away... unless of course you never had any to begin with!  :( Poor progressivenuff. :( Champagne Comedy, every Wednesday. You should attend and perform.  Just be yourself. People will find it hilarious.

So tell us how you can talk about a component, when the substance is a gas.

An oil filter is a ridgid component. CO2 is a dynamic 'component' if you must, of the environment. So lets look at it a different way just for you. Ridgid compared to dynamic is where your example is way out there, and wrong.

You should see the smoke bellowing out of my 2 fires right now…a sight for sore eyes. J

Just think of all those carbon emissions I have and will be expelling into the atmosphere over the next 20/30 years every winter.

You can kiss my hairy crack Juliar, cause I don’t need your rebates; I’ll just be burning all that glorious wood and pumping all that carbon Dioxide into the air.  

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:00pm:

So tell us how you can talk about a component, when the substance is a gas. An oil filter is a ridgid component. CO2 is a dynamic 'component' if you must, of the environment. So lets look at it a different way just for you. Ridgid compared to dynamic is where your example is way out there, and wrong.

Lets start again.

Think about Australia as a sub-system to the world system.

:) That should get you going for a bit.  Draw out a rich picture and from there try to work out where I was going with it.  With a bit of luck you might ... just might... be able to use that brain of yours to work it out.  It's a stretch, but I'll prey for ya :)

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:13pm:

You should see the smoke bellowing out of my 2 fires right now…a sight for sore eyes. J Just think of all those carbon emissions I have and will be expelling into the atmosphere over the next 20/30 years every winter. You can kiss my hairy crack Juliar, cause I don’t need your rebates; I’ll just be burning all that glorious wood and pumping all that carbon Dioxide into the air.

...and once again this is why you are so backwards and a dumbass :)
;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:00pm: So tell us how you can talk about a component, when the substance is a gas. An oil filter is a ridgid component. CO2 is a dynamic 'component' if you must, of the environment. So lets look at it a different way just for you. Ridgid compared to dynamic is where your example is way out there, and wrong. Lets start again. Think about Australia as a sub-system to the world system. :) That should get you going for a bit.  Draw out a rich picture and from there try to work out where I was going with it.  With a bit of luck you might ... just might... be able to use that brain of yours to work it out.  It's a stretch, but I'll prey for ya :)

Guessing game on the significance going through your head and no example to follow the significance in your head.

You need to spell out the significance according to you, and an example of another system to follow its significance.

The oil filter ridgidnous just want cut it.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:25pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:00pm: So tell us how you can talk about a component, when the substance is a gas. An oil filter is a ridgid component. CO2 is a dynamic 'component' if you must, of the environment. So lets look at it a different way just for you. Ridgid compared to dynamic is where your example is way out there, and wrong. Lets start again. Think about Australia as a sub-system to the world system. :) That should get you going for a bit.  Draw out a rich picture and from there try to work out where I was going with it.  With a bit of luck you might ... just might... be able to use that brain of yours to work it out.  It's a stretch, but I'll prey for ya :) Guessing game on the significance going through your head and no example to follow the significance in your head. You need to spell out the significance according to you, and an example of another system to follow its significance. The oil filter ridgidnous just want cut it.

;D ;D ;D I can't help it if you misunderstand everything.  I can't speak in baby tongue and I don't believe in mothering someone.

Perhaps you should go through the replies from me BEFORE you started to try and guess, and draw out a braindump for yourself? That should help :)  

HINT: Understand that an oil filter analogy had nothing do with the oil, but rather what happens when even the smallest part of a bigger problem breaks down.  Now, think about Australia as a sub-system to the world.

You aren't really a network engineer are you. Why lie for?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:29pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:25pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:00pm: So tell us how you can talk about a component, when the substance is a gas. An oil filter is a ridgid component. CO2 is a dynamic 'component' if you must, of the environment. So lets look at it a different way just for you. Ridgid compared to dynamic is where your example is way out there, and wrong. Lets start again. Think about Australia as a sub-system to the world system. :) That should get you going for a bit.  Draw out a rich picture and from there try to work out where I was going with it.  With a bit of luck you might ... just might... be able to use that brain of yours to work it out.  It's a stretch, but I'll prey for ya :) Guessing game on the significance going through your head and no example to follow the significance in your head. You need to spell out the significance according to you, and an example of another system to follow its significance. The oil filter ridgidnous just want cut it. ;D ;D ;D I can't help it if you misunderstand everything.  I can't speak in baby tongue and I don't believe in mothering someone. Perhaps you should go through the threads from me BEFORE you started to try and guess, and draw out a braindump for yourself? That should help :)

A non-answer is still a non-answer no matter the spin.

All you are talking about is co-operation and components. You cant give examples on a gas as if to talk about countries co-operations. You are in the wrong debate with me if you want me to do the guess work.

You need to stick with the 'what action and co-opertation do we do' crowd.

What’s the matter Alevine “fart in the wind” I’m only reducing the intellectual parameters of the conversation to something you can keep up with… ;D ;D ;D  

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:32pm:

A non-answer is still a non-answer no matter the spin. All you are talking about is co-operation and components. You cant give examples on a gas as if to talk about countries co-operations. You are in the wrong debate with me if you want me to do the guess work. You need to stick with the 'what action and co-opertation do we do' crowd.

It's more fun to be in your crowd considering there are literally only a handful of you "geniuses" left.  Read the edit on my reply. And from there, like I said, formulate a braindump and get your brain functioning! Like I said, I'm not about to baby you.

culldav wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:32pm:

What’s the matter Alevine “fart in the wind” I’m only reducing the intellectual parameters of the conversation to something you can keep up with… ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D You reduce intellectual parameters of this forum by just logging in.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Isn't it time to go collect those trolleys? Ey, useless country bumpkin?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:32pm: A non-answer is still a non-answer no matter the spin. All you are talking about is co-operation and components. You cant give examples on a gas as if to talk about countries co-operations. You are in the wrong debate with me if you want me to do the guess work. You need to stick with the 'what action and co-opertation do we do' crowd. It's more fun to be in your crowd considering there are literally only a handful of you "geniuses" left.  Read the edit on my reply. And from there, like I said, formulate a braindump and get your brain functioning! Like I said, I'm not about to baby you.

I already gave you the answer 2 times over for your ridgid stupid example of an oil filter.

We are talking of a gas, therefore you have to have examples of dynamic fluids/gases. What the hell does a ridgid component have to do with anything in the CO2 debate.

Stick to being a mushroom fearmonger and the 'what do we do' crowd.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:33pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:32pm: A non-answer is still a non-answer no matter the spin. All you are talking about is co-operation and components. You cant give examples on a gas as if to talk about countries co-operations. You are in the wrong debate with me if you want me to do the guess work. You need to stick with the 'what action and co-opertation do we do' crowd. It's more fun to be in your crowd considering there are literally only a handful of you "geniuses" left.  Read the edit on my reply. And from there, like I said, formulate a braindump and get your brain functioning! Like I said, I'm not about to baby you. I already gave you the answer 2 times over for your ridgid stupid example of an oil filter. We are talking of a gas, therefore you have to have examples of dynamic fluids/gases. What the hell does a ridgid component have to do with anything in the CO2 debate. Stick to being a mushroom fearmongers and the 'what do we do' crowd.

wow, someone never ever ever learnt metaphors. Talk about an idiot!!  ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:37pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:36pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:33pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:32pm: A non-answer is still a non-answer no matter the spin. All you are talking about is co-operation and components. You cant give examples on a gas as if to talk about countries co-operations. You are in the wrong debate with me if you want me to do the guess work. You need to stick with the 'what action and co-opertation do we do' crowd. It's more fun to be in your crowd considering there are literally only a handful of you "geniuses" left.  Read the edit on my reply. And from there, like I said, formulate a braindump and get your brain functioning! Like I said, I'm not about to baby you. I already gave you the answer 2 times over for your ridgid stupid example of an oil filter. We are talking of a gas, therefore you have to have examples of dynamic fluids/gases. What the hell does a ridgid component have to do with anything in the CO2 debate. Stick to being a mushroom fearmongers and the 'what do we do' crowd. wow, someone never ever ever learnt metaphors. Talk about an idiot!!  ;D ;D ;D

Well wrong metaphor fool and wrong debate. It is like talking to deadhorse with you sometimes.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:39pm:

Well wrong metaphor fool and wrong debate. It is like talking to deadhorse with you sometimes.

Idiot, if you can't comprehend how the metaphor between an oil filter being a small component in a big picture that can cause the big picture to collapse and australia as a small sub system in the world system, then you are a complete and utter wonk.  Seriously mate, go back, get some actual education, stop pretending to be something you're not and understand where to get your information from. The fact you are still trying to debate an argument the country has left behind over 12 months ago goes to say something about your complete and utter stupidity. What a complete and utter nuff. ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:41pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 31st, 2011 at 4:39pm: Well wrong metaphor fool and wrong debate. It is like talking to deadhorse with you sometimes. Idiot, if you can't comprehend how the metaphor between an oil filter being a small component in a big picture that can cause the big picture to collapse and australia as a small sub system in the world system, then you are a complete and utter wonk.  Seriously mate, go back, get some actual education, stop pretending to be something you're not and understand where to get your information from. The fact you are still trying to debate an argument the country has left behind over 12 months ago goes to say something about your complete and utter stupidity. What a complete and utter nuff. ;D

It is ridgid, you cant use it. The only thing ridgid in YOUR debate is a country.

I am talking about 100% of global carbon output, of which, humans expell 3%. That leaves 97% of dynamic output of CO2. 3% is not of significance against 97% of dynamic CO2 expulsion.

Take out Australia's 1.4% of the 3% or even the 3% (the entire human expulsion of CO2) of human CO2 expulsion and you still end up with a statistical insignificant number compared to the 97% of DYNAMIC environmental CO2 expulsion.

The human caused climate change does not stack up.

Now make an example on how the 3% entire human expulsion of CO2 is a significant factor within the 97% being expelled dynamically by the environment.

progressiveslol wrote on May 31^st, 2011 at 4:50pm:

It is ridgid, you cant use it. The only thing ridgid in YOUR debate is a country. I am talking about 100% of global carbon output, of which, humans expell 3%. That leaves 97% of dynamic output of CO2. 3% is not of significance against 97% of dynamic CO2 expulsion. Take out Australia's 1.4% of the 3% or even the 3% (the entire human expulsion of CO2) of human CO2 expulsion and you still end up with a statistical insignificant number compared to the 97% of DYNAMIC environmental CO2 expulsion. The human caused climate change does not stack up. Now make an example on how the 3% entire human expulsion of CO2 is a significant factor within the 97% being expelled dynamically by the environment.

Nice to see you are completely ignoring what I'm saying and you go right back to the same bullcrap you spur. No problems.
;D ;D ;D

What a complete moron.  Not even worth the time.