http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvXMBwANyvY

So Loony Coalition's 5% carbon reduction aim is a complete nonsense.

For once we agree.

"Dead in the water...face down"   ;D ;D ;D

Rider wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:

"Dead in the water...face down"   ;D ;D ;D

we wish!

We should be worrying about a new Little Ice Age, together with Prof Erlich's Population Bomb and rachel Carson's Silent Spring, instead of this GW debate, promulgated by third-rate zoologists like Flannery.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 5:35pm:

We should be worrying about a new Little Ice Age, together with Prof Erlich's Population Bomb and rachel Carson's Silent Spring, instead of this GW debate, promulgated by third-rate zoologists like Flannery.

Who the heck promoted the git to third rate???

Rider wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 6:21pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 5:35pm: We should be worrying about a new Little Ice Age, together with Prof Erlich's Population Bomb and rachel Carson's Silent Spring, instead of this GW debate, promulgated by third-rate zoologists like Flannery. Who the heck promoted the git to third rate???

he is just a paleontologist with no more climate credentials than you or I.

The acidification of the sea is enough justification for reducing carbon fuels

miketrees wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

The acidification of the sea is enough justification for reducing carbon fuels

if it were true and there was an actual causative correlation.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 8:06pm:

miketrees wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 7:48pm: The acidification of the sea is enough justification for reducing carbon fuels if it were true and there was an actual causative correlation.

Carbonic Acid Gas, is a little too obvious?

____ wrote on Apr 16^th, 2013 at 8:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 8:06pm: miketrees wrote on Apr 16th, 2013 at 7:48pm: The acidification of the sea is enough justification for reducing carbon fuels if it were true and there was an actual causative correlation. Carbonic Acid Gas, is a little too obvious?

8 words does not constitute causative correlation. contrary to your thinking, actual research and actual facts are what are required.

if our oceans are that bad how come whales and sharks are on the increase???

cods

cods wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

if our oceans are that bad how come whales and sharks are on the increase???

Climates shift and change naturally and in some places this may benefit certain species and inhibit others.

Whales and sharks are on the rise for various reasons I would suggest the fact that they are mostly protected these days is the main one, I am all for sustainability.

Most commercial whaling is insignificant compared to the past and no one really wants the product. Outside of that you only have Norwegians and Eskimos knocking them off.

I personally have no issue with whaling if its done sustainably, most whales are less intelligent than pigs which we kill millions of every day. Small scale commercial and traditional I am ok with as long as we use tradition rowing boats (no outboards) and traditional spears (no explosive tip harpoons). I am opposed to the so called Japanese whaling as either research or traditional, pre WII Japan never had any traditional whaling of note.

cods wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

if our oceans are that bad how come whales and sharks are on the increase???

Because they are protected.....Fish stocks such as tuna are rapidly on the decline.....However this has more to do with over fishing than global warming!!!

:) :) :)

Both the ALP and Coalition are advocating a 5% cut in our emissions by 2020!!!

The ALP have implemented a market based policy that is funded by the polluters and is considered the most effective way to achieve the 5% target by 2020 and beyond!!!

The Coalition have proposed a Direct Action policy that is funded by the taxpayer that is considered the most expensive and least effective way to achieve the 5% target  by 2020 and beyond!!!

Not to mention the Coalitions policy will not work and is based on faulty assumptions.....No wonder the faithful will not debate the merits of Tony Abbott's crap policy!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

Both the ALP and Coalition are advocating a 5% cut in our emissions by 2020!!! The ALP have implemented a market based policy that is funded by the polluters and is considered the most effective way to achieve the 5% target by 2020 and beyond!!! The Coalition have proposed a Direct Action policy that is funded by the taxpayer that is considered the most expensive and least effective way to achieve the 5% target  by 2020 and beyond!!! Not to mention the Coalitions policy will not work and is based on faulty assumptions.....No wonder the faithful will not debate the merits of Tony Abbott's crap policy!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

it is  'considered' to be the best way by theoretical economists, politicians and academics. and the example of a working carbon tax or ETS that reduces emissions??? NONE. not one has succeeded yet you still; trot out this line that it is the best way despite being a 100% failure everywhere it has been tried.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 6:24pm: Both the ALP and Coalition are advocating a 5% cut in our emissions by 2020!!! The ALP have implemented a market based policy that is funded by the polluters and is considered the most effective way to achieve the 5% target by 2020 and beyond!!! The Coalition have proposed a Direct Action policy that is funded by the taxpayer that is considered the most expensive and least effective way to achieve the 5% target  by 2020 and beyond!!! Not to mention the Coalitions policy will not work and is based on faulty assumptions.....No wonder the faithful will not debate the merits of Tony Abbott's crap policy!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] it is  'considered' to be the best way by theoretical economists, politicians and academics. and the example of a working carbon tax or ETS that reduces emissions??? NONE. not one has succeeded yet you still; trot out this line that it is the best way despite being a 100% failure everywhere it has been tried.

100% failure.....Care to back that crap up mate.....Even half the Liberal party think that an ETS is better than Direct Action.....Perhaps you can point out an economist or Scientist who thinks Direct Action is a good policy....Your failure to weigh up the two options on offer and deflect with bullshit says a lot about you Longy....No point debating with you when you ignore the Elephant in the room!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 17^th, 2013 at 6:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 6:37pm: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 17th, 2013 at 6:24pm: Both the ALP and Coalition are advocating a 5% cut in our emissions by 2020!!! The ALP have implemented a market based policy that is funded by the polluters and is considered the most effective way to achieve the 5% target by 2020 and beyond!!! The Coalition have proposed a Direct Action policy that is funded by the taxpayer that is considered the most expensive and least effective way to achieve the 5% target  by 2020 and beyond!!! Not to mention the Coalitions policy will not work and is based on faulty assumptions.....No wonder the faithful will not debate the merits of Tony Abbott's crap policy!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] it is  'considered' to be the best way by theoretical economists, politicians and academics. and the example of a working carbon tax or ETS that reduces emissions??? NONE. not one has succeeded yet you still; trot out this line that it is the best way despite being a 100% failure everywhere it has been tried. 100% failure.....Care to back that crap up mate.....Even half the Liberal party think that an ETS is better than Direct Action.....Perhaps you can point out an economist or Scientist who thinks Direct Action is a good policy....Your failure to weigh up the two options on offer and deflect with bullshit says a lot about you Longy....No point debating with you when you ignore the Elephant in the room!!! ::) ::) ::)

the EU have indicated that their ETS has had no impact on carbon emissions. no other country has indicated any success either. the biggest reducer of emissions by far has been economic recession - something the EU has in spades.