Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Stop The Carbon Tax

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by vmaxer, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. #1 Arrium, Feb 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Taxing carbon dioxide is a huge scam, here's a different view of climate change and why the CO2 TAX will prevent absolutely nothing on a World scale :

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/30/what-the-future-holds-in-store/ CO2 levels since 1880 directly in line with population explosion.

    [media=youtube]WJDG3G5d3Bk[/media] George Carlin humourus view

    [media=youtube]JpfMM3bVbhQ[/media] Professor Bob Carter

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647# Climate change swindle

    Take the climate change test : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/Q1.html

    CO2 & temperature : http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/201...-no-relationship-between-co2-and-temperature/

    http://www.andysrant.com/2011/11/the-carbon-tax-its-like-a-turd-in-a-swimming-pool.html A turd in a swimming pool
  2. I do love that video and I love George. However, if he were alive today, he would tell people that climate change is not a myth. He may or may not agree with the tax, but the science is fairly settled on this one.
  3. Have to agree the carbon tax is a sham and this in itself is suggesting the whole climate change thing is now for those in it to make a buck and I am seriously starting to doubt some of the science as it seems to have been hijacked along the same principles as the muarc.
  4. Some bits of the science may be used by people to try to make a buck, yes. The science itself, however, isn't in the money game; facts are facts.
  5. Thermal you have been brainwashed, there is no evidence of significant global warming over the last 20 years, even though we have been told otherwise by climate alarmists since 1990. The science is raging in debate, it remains far from settled.


  6. I started as a denier - it was the facts that changed my mind - http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    I'd be interested to know how many of the 'scientists' that have purportedly signed in the second link are crazy religious nutjobs from the USA... Ok, I just looked at the list of signatories broken down into fields. 579 signatures from those that are apparently working (edit: not even working, just qualified; 'educated in' /edit) in a field related to the subject matter, 9,833 engineers. I'm sorry, this does not sway me in the least.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Great, I'm glad you said that, because your issue (as with most deniers) is with cost and not scientific facts.

    Yes, Kyoto is in dire need of revising. Yes, China and the US need to be held accountable. Yes, it's going to cost money to effect change. No, none of this means that the facts about the science are in dispute.

    Complain about the cost of making changes - don't argue that the facts are wrong.

  8. Fixed.
  9. I don't think I was clear enough when I said 'the science.' The facts explained by the science of gravity, of thermodynamics, of evolution - none of these things are here for the money; just objective truths about our existence. This is what I meant. There are facts about climate change that people may try to use to make money, but this does not mean the facts cease to be any less true.

    At the end of the day, it pays to ask "what if I'm wrong?"

    If I am wrong, then I am out of pocket some money.
    If you are wrong, then the comfort (and possibly existence) of the human race is in question.

    I'm ok with my choice; morally and financially.
  10. I don't particularly know anything about climate change, and I don't pretend to know I do. But one thing I don't understand, the 500 biggest polluters that have to pay the $23/tonne for carbon emissions will just pass the cost onto the next person, then they will pass it onto the next person, etc etc.

    At the end of the day (this is what I reckon will happen only) the person who will foot the bill will be everyday people, like you and me.

    Everything will go up in price and the Australian economy will go down the toilet.

    That's how I see it as a lay man anyway.
  11. yes, but that's the point isn't it. If the costs become too high then the consumer looks elswhere and (for instance) sources green energy which will become cheaper because they don't pay the tax. The brown coal burners are then forced to invest in cleaner technology to bring their costs down to attract more customers etc etc etc
  12. Can you really see Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton changing into cleaner technology? Given that most of their coal exports go to other countries. Don't think so. They will just pay the tax and continue business as usual.

    What do you reckon?
  13. They'll go wherever they can make money. If green will make them more money than brown, that's where they'll go.

    Also, you just undermined your first concern. If most of their sales go to an overseas market, then that is where the costs will be passed too, not to you and me.
  14. More wealth redistribution, bring on the trading market so we can really get into the rhythm of chocking you in the arse, bite the pillow we are coming through dry!

    Yours sincerely, Australian Government. (again)
  15. Yeah, but that's only two of the biggest 500. I can imagine a fair whack of the other 498 will pass the costs to us.
  16. And with this one, refer to simon varley's earlier point.
  17. Yes but have you looked at the tax offsets you are going to get to compensate that?

    So for the vast majority of us we wont be immediately out of pocket, but the pressure will be on the polluters to bring about efficiencies. When they do that, you will then be faced with lowering costs.

    So less tax and lowering costs.

    I can tell you now if you go and talk to a station about the opportunity to lower their fuel burn for the same output, they are not interested. The payback periods are too long. The Carbon tax changes that.

    This is why the tax will be an economic stimulus. Many, many project will go ahead that are currently sitting on the shelf.
  18. And who do you think will bear the costs of dealing with a changed climate? Us.

    Part of this is also to pass on costs to consumers. To make them actually think about what they're doing and where that energy is coming from.

    Meanwhile I'm pretty sure we're all feeding the troll.

    vmaxer now has threads on guns, boat people and carbon tax.
  19. I will be even though I'm the only breadwinner at home as my pay is above 80 grand it works out I'll be $10 a week WORSE off even though I have a family to support.
    Those on combined income of 80 grand get the tax offsets, how is that fair?