I think it's time that Labor stopped trotting out their stupid economists at the National Press Club. My guess is that they're all refugees from Taxaholics Anonymous.

So far I've seen Professor Lord Nicholas Stern, Professor Ross Garnaut, Professor Tim Flannery and more recently, some other nincompoop, all pushing the same rubbish.

The latest nong has written a book entitled: "Why Truth Loses." How silly is he?

His kind of truth will lose every time, BECAUSE IT IS A LIE!

It seems to me that anyone with any real expertise in Climatology is lucky to get onto the radio and seems to be permanently blocked from the more popular, highly useful medium of national television.

Sir
The intent is to not accelerate the amount of new greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere precisely because the planet is not able to handle emissions to date.
Carbon tax is about damage control - unfortunately we have already affected our climate as you note. And we will continue to affect our planets climate with new emissions, please help us to slow it down. Australia is not leading the way in emission cuts but we do lead the way in per capita emissions - a terrible example to the world and legacy for future Australians.

Please note I am an ordinary liberal voter with 16 years in the mining industry. This issue goes beyond your or my life time and do not worry about shooting the messenger, Mr Flannery, Garnaut, Stern etc are only reporting the science that I was learning at uni in the 1980's - all that seems to have changed since then is that my hair is greyer & the evidence of climate change on balance is far greater.

With respect,
Carol-Ann Edwards

The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:8 - With the Lord ...a thousand years are like a day. This may well suggest that in the true sense of the Dictator / Prolerteriat relationship, we may have a Prime Minister who in fact considers herself to be the "Lord of all" and is empowered and qualified to guide us Minions according to her gracious will for us. That will of course is to impose a 'Social Reform' that will do away with democracy and free market economy. We love our country, we encourage growth and opportunity, we in the suburbs are the ones who are struggling with the reality of hard economic times, and we surely are not going to buy the convoluted logic of a Carbon Tax for the year 3011 - not until we can get a bed in the hospital, and a good education for children and somewhere decent where our sick elderly can be cared for anyway.

Hi guys,

Interesting take on the global warming debate. It’s a bit longish and I’ve not read it all but the part on solar activity is very interesting and not something I’ve previously read about so I thought perhaps you may like to read it as well.












Ph: 5476 6188




Some interesting Facts:-



Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:13 PM

Subject: Climate Change... Popular beliefs are not fact.






For those of you who are already aware of this "climate change" crap, please forward to those you may think are still in the dark.

Subject: Fw: How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air? they havent..



How Well Has The Media And Government Informed The Public About CO2 Levels In The Air?

Ask yourself, your friends, family and work associates if they know the answers to the following questions about Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Be sure to write your answers before looking at the following pages.

Question 1. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Question 2. Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

Question 3. What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Question 6. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

I have asked over 100 people these questions. Virtually everyone says they don’t know the answers so ask them to tell you what their perception is by what they have learnt from the media, the government and Green groups. Let them know there is no right or wrong answer as you are just doing a survey as to what people have perceived the answers to be from these sources.

The answers to these questions are fundamental to evaluating the global warming scare YET almost no one knows the facts. However, without this knowledge we can’t make an informed decision about whether Climate Change is natural or not.

On the following pages are respondent’s perceptions followed by the correct answers. The bulk of the respondents (over 100 to date) are educated fairly well to very well. They comprise business managers in a diversity of large and small companies, those in medical profession, accounting, law, sales, engineering as well as scientists and trades people.

2

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Q1. What % of the air is CO2?

Respondent’s Answers: nearly all were 20% - 40%, the highest was 75% while the lowest were 10%- 2%.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036%- 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc)

Nitrogen is just over 78%, Oxygen is just under 21% and Argon is almost 1%. CO2 is a minute trace gas at 0.038%. We all learnt the composition of the air in both primary and high school but because most people don’t use science in their day to day living, they have forgotten this. Also, the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate. This makes it easy for those with agendas to deceive us by using emotive statements rather than facts. For a detailed breakup of the atmosphere go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition



Q2. Have you seen a percentage for CO2 given in the media?

Respondent’s answers: All said ’No’.



Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce?

Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule 0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.



Q4. What % of man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Respondent’s Answers ranged from 20% to 5%.

The Correct Answer is 1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all.



We have been grossly misled to think there is tens of thousands of times as much CO2 as there is!

Why has such important information been withheld from the public? If the public were aware that man-made CO2 is so incredibly small there would be very little belief in a climate disaster so the media would not be able to make a bonanza from years of high sales by selling doomsday stories. Governments and Green groups would not be able to justify a carbon tax that will greatly raise the cost of everything. Major international banks and the stock market would not make massive profits out of carbon trading and many in the science community would not be getting large research grants.



Q5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree. (good gracious John, we were taught in school that it was a fertiliser to plant life more CO2 more plants grow)

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.

Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.

The two large cooling towers are emitting only steam. A tiny amount of CO2 is trickling out of the thin chimney at centre. It is only barely visible due to a small quantity of smoke particles, most of which is filtered out nowadays. The media doesn’t like to show skinny CO2 chimneys emitting nothing visible because this is unimpressive and not the least bit emotive so it doesn’t make for sensationalist journalism. So they typically choose to deceive the public by showing cooling towers.



Q6. Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. (yet John, they blindly follow this belief, the media said it so it must be true) Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC) has never produced any proof. There are, however the following proofs that it can’t cause a greenhouse effect.

• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.

• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html



The following facts show that even high levels of CO2 can make almost no impact on heating the atmosphere.

1. Glasshouses with high levels of CO2 - hundreds of times higher than in the air to make plants grow faster – heat up during the day to the same temperature as glasshouses with air in them. This is also true for bottles of pure CO2 compared to ones with air.

2. The planets Venus and Mars have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%) yet they have no ‘runaway’ greenhouse heating effect. Their temperatures are stable. (by the way John, the ice on Mars was melting during the period also that they said we were causing global warming, it is not back to normal I think).

3. The geological record over hundreds of millions of years has shown that CO2 has had no affect whatsoever on climate. At times, CO2 was hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages.

4. In recent times when Earth was considerably warmer during the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, the higher temperatures then were totally natural because there was no industrialization back then.

• Water vapour is 4% of the air and that‘s 100 times as much as CO2. Water vapour absorbs 33 times as much heat as CO2 making CO2’s contribution insignificant. But like CO2, water vapour also gives this heat away to air molecules by contact (conduction) and radiation, thereby making the surrounding air the same temperature.

• The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin so its heat is continually being lost to the absolute coldness of outer space (-270 C). As there is no ‘ceiling’ to the atmosphere, surface heat cannot be retained. The Sun renews warmth every day.

Over the last few years Earth has had much colder winters due to very few magnetic storms on the Sun. (and that is the key to our temperatures John) These four increasingly colder winters have been particularly noticeable in the northern hemisphere where most of the land is. Because of this, the Arctic has re-frozen and glaciers that were receding are now surging due to the heavy snow falls. The Arctic showed some melting around its edges from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s due to the very high level of solar storm activity at that time. But as the Sun is now entering probably 2-4 decades of low solar activity, this is expected to cause global cooling. For more detail, see the following page. (well if we are going into an ice age, the governments had better stoke up the fires if they really believe that CO2 causes heating, eheheheh)

3

4

The climate has always been naturally cyclic and variable due to numerous natural drivers of which CO2 is not one. (history has proven that, so why are the people so dumb) Over millions of years the climate has shown far greater changes in the geological record than we have seen over the last 200 hundred years - and there was no industrialization back then. The very minor variations we have witnessed over the last 100 years have all occurred several times even in that short period. Today’s changes in climate are common and completely natural. There are now over 50 books that provide numerous reasons why man-made global warming is false.



The Effect of the Sun on Earth’s climate

It has long been known that the Sun is by far the major driver of all weather on Earth because it is the source of all heat and energy. There is absolutely no real-world evidence that the temperature has continually risen as we were led to believe. The hottest records in the USA and Greenland were in the 1930s due to a strong solar cycle. It became cooler from 1940 to 1970. This was due to a weak solar cycle. It has again become increasingly colder since 2006 due to another weak solar cycle. The Sun’s magnetic storm activity has now moved to an extended minimum so the next 2-4 maximums are expected to be much weaker than the last few have been. By 2011 the solar cycle should have risen half way back to its 11 year maximum but it hasn’t! It’s only just started. The last time the Sun acted this way was during the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830 which produced 40 years of very cold winters with subdued, wetter summers globally - just as we are experiencing now. From 1450 -1750 a more intense Maunder Minimum occurred which caused the Little Ice Age. The next 2-4 solar cycles will very likely be low in solar activity causing noticeably cooler global temperatures for a few decades.

For details see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/02/solar-cycle-24-update

and http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/another-dalton-minimum/

The effect of the current Solar Minimum is particularly obvious in the northern hemisphere where increasingly colder winter temperatures have caused massive snow falls disrupting transportation across Europe, Asia and the US.

Despite more than a decade of continual doomsday predictions of increasing temperatures and never-ending drought globally, the opposite has happened. There have been lower temperatures globally with greatly increased rain and snows over much of the planet since 2006. This has caused floods across most of Australia and most other counties, as seen on the TV news. This ended the global 10 year drought conditions from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. There has been no drop in CO2 to cause this: in fact, CO2 has risen. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate. The reason CO2 levels have gone up a little is most likely due to the surface of the oceans warming very slightly during the later half of the century and therefore releasing a little CO2. (The oceans are currently cooling very slightly.) Mankind’s contribution to CO2 is so small it’s not measurable.



Polls on Climate Change

Polls in western countries now show that believers in man-made global warming are now in the minority with a sizable percentage of over 20% who “don’t know” if CO2 is causing any change. The obvious change to a cooler, wetter climate combined with the revelations of climate fraud shown by the Climategate emails has led to the change in public perception. Polls asking people what is the most important threat to them out of a list of 20 issues, place global warming at the bottom!

Popular beliefs are not fact

The bulk of the population of the western world believed that the 2000 Bug would destroy much of our technology on New Year’s Eve 2000 yet not one disaster occurred anywhere. We were told CFCs caused the Ozone ‘hole’ yet after billions of dollars were spent removing CFCs over 30 years, the slight depletion of Ozone at the South Pole has not changed. Scientists now think it is natural. (I already knew that it was natural John and just another way of scaring people, Mohammad said that a terrorised people are easier to control and he was so right.) Popular beliefs are often based on blind faith, ideology and profit rather than proven scientific evidence. History is littered with popular consensuses that were wrong.



A Carbon Tax

Taxing CO2 achieves nothing for the environment; in fact, it deprives real environmental issues from receiving funds. A carbon tax will have a disastrous impact on lower and middle income earners. Even if drastic measures were imposed equally on all countries around the world to reduce the total human CO2 contribution by as much as 30%, this would reduce total CO2 by an insignificant percentage. It would have no affect whatsoever on the climate but it would totally destroy the economies of every country and dramatically lower everyone’s living standards. Most people and politicians are making decisions emotively, not factually about a complex science they know virtually nothing about.

Gregg D Thompson

Climate Researcher

Astronomer

Environmentalist

Author of two science books

Business Manager and Director of 3 companies

Author of science magazine articles

Designer and project manager of special effects attractions

Nature photographer

Has a great interest in most sciences

Loves creating innovation in art

Barnaby,
If the world doesn't cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature will continue to rise up and up.
The purpose of taking action on climate change is to stop temperatures rising not make them go down.
Can we please go through this carefully - its very important!

Greenhouse gasses, is an interesting modern day name applied to Carbon Dioxide. My thoughts are that "greenhouse gasses" will eventually be the name applied to all the hot air generated in the in the Green Party & Labour Party Think Tank.
The Green Party and Julia Gillard are the nightmare Australia have to have. We will eventually wake up to a new day, a day where sensible policies are formulated and implemented for the benefit of all Australians, not just the fringe minority who are basking in their own glory and enjoying the spotlight... Labour will be left groping on the dark side of politics as the spot light shifts and public opinion changes, and it will, because Bob Brown is the loose canon Labour cannot control.

This is great news!
However I think even after 1000 years wont make a difference.
Lets say every country starts today cutting CO2 emissions then tomorrow or 500 years later there is a volcanic eruption, (we have already had a few this year)

"The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He)."

Was cutting CO2 a waste?

here is the full interview with the quote at the start he says it twice in the interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hX9HXWzrI

Roger Beall:

Thank you for posting all of that interesting information for those who are willing to believe anything the government and its economic "experts" trot out.

I find it quite arrogant for anyone to suggest that the planet cannot deal with carbon in all of its forms. Planet Earth and its atmosphere contain finite amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon etc. The important thing to remember is that none of these elements can increase or decrease in quantity, only appear in different combinations and in different places.

One volcanic eruption spews out more CO2 than human beings can produce. It also spews out lava to create rich volcanic soil from which both crops and mighty forests grow.

When farmers grow crops in greenhouses with excessive CO2 in the air, the crops grow better, not worse. This is in the book written by Professor Tim Flannery, who also believes in a Pagan religion with Gaia (Mother Earth) as its God.

So please let us use some common sense and maturity when discussing climatic conditions. While it is essential to have MODERATE environmental policies in place, GOVERNMENTS MUST NOT ALLOW GLOBAL BANKS TO RIP US ALL OFF WITH A TAX ON AIR.

In case some are not convinced, I would like everyone to know that from June 2011, The Macquarie Bank will be collecting TRAFFIC FINES throughout Australia. They will be empowered to catch you out with new speed cameras which work at a distance of 400 metres.

And some thought the police were bad!

Great little site you have here, Senator Joyce. Perhaps you could encourage people to use it with a modicum of intellectual rigour. The average year 9 student in any Austrlaian school would fail in an assignment for making the unsupported comments that are made here. If the respondents here are graduates, then perhaps the Coalition needs to come up with a much improved education system than existed in the past.

Andrew,
I strongly suggest you do some research on JoNovas site.
The temperature of the planet has previously risen ..long before industries were pumping "anything" into the atmosphere...and dropped again.
Research will inform you that ....
"The warming came BEFORE any increase in CO2"......
So how do the experts explain this????
They can't.
Warming (if there is indeed any) has occurred due to OTHER factors, other than CO2.....
You and many others,..have been "conned"....its total BS.!!
$$$$$ ...are the only interest today.....and controlling populations by keeping them poor and dependant on Govn handouts. (UN Agenda 21)
The only true environmentalists today.....are the Rural populations...with their tried,..hands-on experiences.
They are the experts......with NO hidden agendas.

Is this the same Professor Flannery who predicted in 2007 that the eastern states would run out of water in 3 years due to global warming? The Victorian government was freaked into building the worlds largest desalination plant to burn dirty brown coal to make fresh water. Imagine all of the schools, alternative energy programs, hospitals and fast trains we can no longer build because we wasted our money on the plants. Any professor who got a 3 year prediction so wrong in his claimed area of expertise would never make a 1000 year prediction and expect to be believed...would they?

Keep up the good fight Barnaby.

Here is an interesting read http://www.suite101.com/content/clouds-and-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-a219305

When I was at Uni, I distinctly remember being told that mercury once in an amalgam is perfectly stable. This view was held for decades but I doubt if now you would find any dentists in agreement - in fact mercury is far from stable in fillings and can cause a variety of problems.

The nature of science and scientific thought must be scrutinised in this whole argument. This greenhouse gas is a theory but it is paraded as fact and a tax on the environment will have zero effect. When politicians say "the science is settled" they have just indicated their ignorance.

The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapour. CO2 is effectively 380mm in a 1 kilometre distance. If mankind contributes 3% to that, then we have 12 mm portion of the whole atmosphere. Since Australia contributes about 1% to the world's C02 emissions, we are really talking about a hairs width now in the 1 km.

Certainly, pollution needs to be addressed - but don't call C02 pollution!!!! Its necessary for life - taken up by plants for photosynthesis thereby producing food and oxygen. There are many factors influencing climate. Since the smartest scientists cannot accurately predict weather in a few months time ( sometimes even a few days) this demonstrates that no accurate model yet formulates the changes of nature. How then can outlandish 50 year predictions have any credibility when the model used for the extrapolation is not highly accurate????

At the end of the nineteenth century, many scientists believed all was discovered and what was left was to calculate to the fifth decimal place. One unexplained phenomena was the photoelectric effect. This within a few decades ushered in the electronics age.

True scientists must not be arrogant and people must learn to realise how science really works. It progresses when proved wrong. Not cock and bull rubbish peddled by the likes of Professor(??) Flannery.

Paul:

To answer your question, this is the same Professor Tim Flannery who previously received an Australian of the Year award.

This year's recipient is Simon McKeon, honcho from The Macquarie Group. As I have already stated, from June 2011 The Macquarie Bank will be collecting speed fines across the whole of Australia, providing them with a nice little nest egg to buy out further government and private business enterprises.

The government only trots out "experts" with an interest in taxing us to the eyeballs. This is why most of them are economists.

I recently attended a lecture by Professor Bob Carter who is an expert in 2 areas of Climatology, and knowledgeable about a few others. He said there are about 100 associated Climatology disciplines and, in his view, there is absolutely no one who can safely predict anything in relation to climate, let alone a bunch of economists and believers in Pagan religion.

Here is the name of the book written by Professor Bob Carter on Climate.

"Climate: The Counter-Consensus"

I trust that all of those who still think it is fair for the government to inflict TOXIC LEVELS OF TAXATION on all Australians will get a copy and read it, instead of criticising those who wish to save our nation from economic collapse.

You will find plenty of information on proposed Carbon Tax Rallies at the following link:

There is also video footage from the rallies which have already taken place in various capital cities.

http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/

For those Queenslanders who don't have time to access the link, here is the time and date for the next Carbon Tax Rally in Brisbane. Please mark it on your calendars.

Venue: Outside Parliament House, Cnr George & Alice Sts, Brisbane

Date: Saturday, 7 May 2011

Time: 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m.

Since some of us are expecting a State election to be called at any time, we need to get the message across as loudly and clearly as possible. If you have time, please make a sign to hold up which has a hard-hitting message.

That way you will get to have your say continuously and without interruption.

Hi Barnaby,
I enjoy immensely your regular articles in the Canberra Times. I would like to bring to your attention the follow blogs I picked up tonight on the internet concerning the future of Australia's mining industry. I suspect you may have seen the inteview on Lateline last night (there has been no comment about what was said in the MSM today as far as I can see). Anyhow, you can see it on iview or whatever the ABC calls it. Would like to see you do a follow up on this as I believe it would be another nail in Labor's coffin.

"Good interview by Ali Moore on Lateline last night. An economist by the name of Hale summarised the global mining situation in respect of iron ore and predicted that in 4 years time 60% of China’s needs will be sourced from West Africa. This will have the effect of reducing prices at least 30% and it will leave Gillards mining tax revenue very marginal. A lot of the miners in West Africa are Australian companies who are being bankrolled by tyhe Chinese. They are voting on the mining tax with their feet.
Well, we tried to tell her.

the sunshine grocer of canberra (Reply)
Wed 30 Mar 11 (10:53am)

Keith replied to the sunshine grocer
Wed 30 Mar 11 (12:37pm)
Spot on Sunshine.
And if the Chinese can find coal elsewhere, they’ll do that too. Long term Australia will have to match Africa (with vertically integrated Chinese mining/refining companies) for price. Not only will the tax not generate revenue, Australian mines will be uncompetitive.
Factor in the short term potential of the Chinese real estate/over investment bubble (and consequent crash), and you can see Australia is on very shaky ground.

the sunshine grocer replied to the sunshine grocer
Wed 30 Mar 11 (01:42pm)
Keith, your assessment of the consequences is unfortunately, for Australia, correct. BHP have a huge coal mine to come on line in Borneo soon and Leighton are developing another huge quality coal deposit in Mongolia which will be able to be railed direct into China. Couple this with the widening of the Panama Canal to accommodate the monstrous new bulk ore carriers that will transport from both West Africa and Brazil and Austrakia will again become a victim of the “tyranny of distance”. Of course, no one in the Labor party would have read The Tyranny of Distance because it was written by Geoffrey Blainey and not Comrade Manning Clarke so they havent a clue about global logistics. Keating (let’s bring himback) was right when he said Australia “was at the a*** end of the world”.

Tony W replied to the sunshine grocer
Wed 30 Mar 11 (03:07pm)
You can add Brazil and Peru to your list also sunshine grocer, both these countries are being primed and ready to go; if Australia doesn’t get its finger out it will be at the back of the queue and it will be sooner than later; our morgage on global resources is dwindling by the month, thanks sunshine grocer.

hawk replied to the sunshine grocer
Wed 30 Mar 11 (04:26pm)
This isn’t a problem for Gillardbrown,she won’t be around in 4 years time in fact she won’t even be in parliament then and besides making profits is anathema to all good socialists/marxists/communists/greens.

scaper... replied to the sunshine grocer
Wed 30 Mar 11 (04:41pm)
Add Mongolia to the list. Once the rail connection is built the boom is over! "

Regards,
Dick Larkey

Amen to that. The real reason for the tax, of course, is to try to reduce the debt caused by the ridiculous sheeling out of the $900 to all and sundry and the ludicrous "building the education revolution" expedition. The sooner we get rid of Queen Bob and Deputy Juliar the better Australia woul be!!!

No, the real reason for the Carbon Tax is to:

1. destroy what remains of the Australian economy,

2. send the remaining work offshore,

3. leave Australians without jobs,

4. increase the rate of homelessness,

5. make us vulnerable to a bailout and subsequent control by the United Nations (International Monetary Fund),

6. bring in global governance.

Chairman Kevin Rudd is eagerly waiting in the wings to head up the China-poverty of Nations as our World Sector Leader.

Labor/Greens have absolutely ZERO INTEREST in reducing foreign debt, as it will not achieve goals 1 - 6 as above.

I'm sure Kevin 07 is already tapping his feet with impatience to get on with the job.

Barnaby Joyce how can you be so insensitive?
We must act on global warming NOW NOW NOW.

If we fail to do so the slow down in the suns activity will become obvious to everyone as the planet goes into a natural cooling phase and the window of opportunity to make a buck will have passed.

I am astounded that, given the reputation of the average politician, you are allowing the facts to get in the way of such a great money spinner.

Lighten up Barnaby and let the suckers get fleeced. It is their (our?) lot in life.

To the rest of you real science types, get used to it, get over it, bend over and lube up 'cause here comes the carbon tax.

Hey Barnaby

Just noticed an interesting scientific paper from the CSIRO reported on the respected website "Watts Up With That". The paper is predicting falling frequency of Cyclones if global warming continues, this directly contradicts many alarmist predictions that there will be more weather extremes.

Keep up the good work Barnaby

Gerard Dean

As anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics we must not enter into faith based arguments.
Proponents of the AGW hypothesis have not yet falsified the fundamental laws of physics that refute nonsensical notions of 'runaway effects' causing catastrophe.
The politicisation of AGW beggars belief. The science 'should' remain apolitical and hypothetical unless proven.

No worries! if we want to reduce carbon emmissions by 65% we can hold population to 1958 levels. If it is true that humanity is responsible for climate change then how can any one who subscribes to this have truck with such ideas as IVF and charity to the 3rd world.

If they are sincere then any one who advocates extending lives must clearly have a policy to restrain population.

Tom Mulligan

Peregian Beach

Tom Mulligan:

Firstly there is no definitive proof that reducing the population would do anything to change the climate. It must also be remembered that carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, but a nurturer of vegetation.

I think John Howard was right to encourage couples to have 3 children each in order to keep our population growing in the younger generations. Zero Population Growth has been calculated as an average of 2.1 children per couple. This takes into account deaths due to misadventure and illness, the people who never marry or have children, and possibly some of the infertile.

IVF helps couples to raise their share of the children. When ZPG was calculated in the late 1960s, the figure was 2.3. I'm guessing that it was revised down to 2.1 because of the use of modern methods of assisted reproduction.

A reduced population would make Australia more vulnerable to attack from over-populated nations such as India, Japan and China. It would also reduce our ability to maintain a strong economy.

The Age Pyramid is already top heavy with middle aged and elderly people, due to the overuse of contraception since the pill was introduced in 1961, and easy access to abortion.

We need to balance out our Age Pyramid by encouraging people to have at least 2 or 3 children, and by continuing with a robust immigration program.

I support you on many issues but your main argument on climate change appears to be we aren't doing enough so let's do less!

Are you proposing to make the changes required to reverse the damage in one term?

You could equally argue it is not worth climbing 10m up Mount Everest because there that is only one thousandth of the way to the top. The evidence on climate change has been growing since the theory was first proposed in the 1950's and someone has to take the first step.

On Saturday night when I was watching the news, I saw hundreds of people demonstrating in King George Square here in Brisbane.

If Robin Hood had still been with us, he would have been completely astounded, absolutely flabbergasted and grossly dismayed at the spectacle of a large group of brainless peasants demanding a TAX INCREASE from the government.

Imagine what he would have thought if he had known this seriously misguided lobby group were saying YES to a TAX ON AIR!

"By the time this proposed carbon tax has had its affect "

The goal of greenhouse gas emissions reductions is not to stop warming that has already happened, it is prevent excessive warming in the long-term (over the next 50-100 years) future.

The CSIRO makes this easy to understand ;
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-is-changing.html

Craig:

Yes, 60 years is about how long we have been putting up with global banks trying to take us for an economic ride down a slippery slope to hell, perhaps a little longer. That would take us back to the supposed end of World War II in 1945, but what has actually happened is a change to a different type of war, known as daylight robbery by banks.

We have also been putting up with Greedpeace for a little over 40 years.

A little over 35 years ago, Gough Whitlam signed us up to the Lima Declaration which said we were going to help out our neighbours from the third world. Instead of that happening, 93% of our manufacturing industries have gone offshore, we have become a net importer of food and now we have Oxfam angrily demanding $17 billion a year for the third world to meet Millennium Development Goals.

The new Pagan Carbon Religion which proposes a TAX ON AIR will hit all of us in the hip pocket nerve and the bank balance. The government might say it is only going to apply a Carbon Tax to big business, but I think we are all old enough to know that whatever extra expenses are incurred at the top are generally passed down at least once (generally more than twice). With banks and other global corporations in charge of many services that people don't know about, you can bet those costs will be passed down severalfold until the end of time.

Most of us grew out of believing in fairytales when we were 8 years old. Only idiots and very naive young people believe that a scientific fairy will come along and wave a magic wand to control not only Planet Earth, but and an entire galaxy (including the sun) and make everything "perfect" again.

All of the government's "climate experts" are economists following a Pagan religion and plotting a MASSIVE TAX GRAB. While they get top billing and are featured on ABC television doing National Press Club addresses, we are lucky if we can listen to a real Climate Expert occasionally on the radio.

If my youngest son was onto this scam when he was only 12 years old, it seems to me that plenty of adults have a lot of catching up to do.

At that age, he also came home from school complaining about Free Trade Agreements, having realised that this brilliant plan was a free-for-all for anyone but us!

Keith:

The CSIRO is a federal government body. They tell us whatever the government of the day dictates and, in this case, they have been very heavily indoctrinated with the fallacial Carbon Religion for years.

If things were as bad as the CSIRO says, why have I just seen their CEO on TV for the THIRD TIME in the last year, telling us that we can already grow enough food for 60 million people? Why is she working for a government that is a net importer of food, and is thereby deliberately increasing our foreign debt unnecessarily?

If the government really cared about reducing ANY kind of pollution or emissions, we would be eating locally grown food, would we not?

Ask yourself WHY we would be importing oranges, apples and potatoes from China, with companies such as McCains being allowed to sneak foods in via New Zealand.

WHY would the Sunraysia Daily newspaper be reporting that Coles has a plan to import 5500 crates of white table grapes from Chile later this week, if the government cares about emissions? What about the local farmers having to leave grapes rotting on the vine, and throwing in the towel in disgust, as many have already?!

It's only a couple of weeks since the DLP's Senator Elect, John Madigan (Ballarat) and Independent MP, Bob Katter (North Queensland) successfully went head to head with McCains regarding potatoes, and now they have to do it again!

I think this proves that the government and the CSIRO don't give a rat's backside about emissions. They do nothing whatsoever to stop large corporations screwing honest Australians over, both on the land and in the cities, whenever the chance arises.

Labor/Greens will do ANYTHING to send our nation down the economic gurgler. A Carbon Tax will put a very thick layer of icing on the corporate cake and send us all, lock stock and barrel, to the poorhouse ... while other nations prosper.

Why haven`t I heard pr read anything about the BIG PICTURE. the Dinasuars walked the planet for about 45 million years humans in our form ..give or take.. have been around about 100,000 years. we have o0nly been industriallised 150 years give or take.. prior to that no emissions anywhere, in 100...500...1000. 10,000 years we will have gone on to other forms of transport.. energy... and the climate will still be changing thats for sure... this blink of an eye which is our lifetime and many generations lifetimes to come . is again a blink, in earth time... this is THE BIG PICTURE .xk8avw

PETER COSTELO ON THE ANDREW BOLT SHOW LAST HAD A COMPELLING ARGUMENT AGAINST THE CARBON TAX

HE SAID THAT THIS TAX IS DESIGNED TO DENY AUSTRALIA FROM THE GREAT ADVANTAGE WITH WHICH IT IS ENDOWED
THAT IS A HUGE SOURCE OF INCOME AND A RESOURCE OF CHEAP ENERGY (COAL)

ON THE ONE HAND GILARD WANTS TO DENY US THIS NATURAL HONEY POT OF CHEAP ELECTRICITY. ON THE OTHER SHE PAYS HUGE COMP
TO COMPANIES AND CONSUMERS WHO BOTH SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES .

Well done Barnaby at the stop carbon tax rally yesterday, spoke from the heart, a true Australian