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?

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


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



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

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.

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:


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.  

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.