It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death threats sent to top climate scientists

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Polluting emissions should be market based, there is a cost to environmental damage.....




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
The problem is that too many Australians don't think for themselves and instead believe everything they read in the papers. All they hear is the garbage peddled by Murdoch Newspaper and people like Alan Jones who works for a company with a vested interested in coal mining.

The argument of whether climate science is correct is irrelevant to Australia and the argument that Australia's contribution to CO2 emissions is just a drop in the ocean and a reduction of 5% as good as nothing is also irrelevant. What is real is that Australia's economy relies on its coal exports and any global reduction in demand for our coal will be devastating.

Australia has already lost an unbelievable amount of new green technology which was invented in Australia and has since been sold overseas due to lack of funding and interest to commercialise it. The Howard Government had a vested interest in many of these technolgies because Australian universities assisted in the development, the government provided research funding, and then when it came time for commercialisation, they didn't support it. Australian companies are importing the products made from these technologies because the rights were sold.

The only way to get this market moving is to somehow effect the energy companies bottom line to drive investment into developing new technology so that as coal exports decrease, we lead the way in the new technologies. Neither political party disagrees with this, its just that one whats to tax the energy company directly and give the money to you to help with increased costs and the other, which the media has convinced the sheeple to believe is best, just wants to tax you directly and give your money directly to the industry to invest in new technology. You get nothing but pain from that second scenario. On the other hand, the first scenario not only helps the average Australian by giving them the money raised to assist with their increased costs, but it also means that the invesment money for new technology will come in part from the Trillions of dollars held in superanuation funds invested in Australian companies.


The person that says the majority of Australians are against the carbon tax needs to turn the radio off, stop buying newspapers, and stop watching sheeple news on TV. Rudd won by a landslide on an emissions trading scheme policy and then when he bowed to the media pressure and delayed it the public crucified the party for it. Just because the likes of Alan Jones and Piers Ackerman have an agenda, their audience does not represent the majority of Australians.

Finally, lets say fthe scientists are wrong which is a definite possibility. Does anyone deny that the air in our cities is polluted? Is that not reason enough? They have to announce pollution levels on the radio when they are high to warn asthmatics to stay in doors. Is that not a good enough reason to change in itself?
edit on 4-6-2011 by Seagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Tell you what..
With all those pretty graphs, how about showing us one that illustrates Al Gore's carbon footprint since he started this scam??

Surely considering his passion for the planet, we'll notice a rapid decline on the graph, right???



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Manbearpig strikes again.
How many carbon trading companies is he a shareholder in?
edit on 4-6-2011 by TheKingsVillian because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seagle

The person that says the majority of Australians are against the carbon tax needs to turn the radio off, stop buying newspapers, and stop watching sheeple news on TV. Rudd won by a landslide on an emissions trading scheme policy and then when he bowed to the media pressure and delayed it the public crucified the party for it. Just because the likes of Alan Jones and Piers Ackerman have an agenda, their audience does not represent the majority of Australians.f?
edit on 4-6-2011 by Seagle because: (no reason given)


That would be me,funny the people i talk to are not on the radio or in the newspapers,what do you read the Green Party weekly? Left wing green voting hippies do not represent the majority of Aussie's mate
Rudd won the election because of Work choices,to say it was because of the proposed ETS is pure BS


If the majority wanted a carbon tax why didn't Gillard go to an election on it?No much better to deny your party is going to bring in a carbon tax,then 6 months later bring it up again,lying bitch she is,
Bottom line mate if the the majority of Australians wanted a carbon tax,Gillard would have used it as a platform for last years federal election,we don't and she didn't.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
This is MSM scare mogering
Canberra in Australia is like Washington DC.... it is choc.a.block full of pc solf hand poodle walking, blouse wearing...girly men...A thunder storm would make these professionals quiver...oohh the sky is falling.....
Thinking aware Aussies do not pay much attention to the clap trap that comes from this horrible suburb..
Then if you add that to the murdock opinion.......Well what can one say?...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by whatisanameanyway
 


This carbon tax is a way for the government to get more money .I heard we will pay for it through our electricity bills.Not good for old people who are already watching every cent they spend.I remember a few years ago some elderly people taken to hospital with heat exhaustion because they didn`t even want to use a fan because of electricity costs.I for one am totally against it.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Gore is to climatology what Bugs Bunny is to quantum physics. Only not nearly as funny.

I do sometimes wonder how much the "anti science, anything but humans, God squad" paid him to spread his disinformation.

But anyway, he's a typical example of the "I've got so much money I can do what I want and pay you to clean up my mess" attitude that I so much despise.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



But anyway, he's a typical example of the "I've got so much money I can do what I want and pay you to clean up my mess" attitude that I so much despise.


But isn't that what I already said?
The middle class and poor will pay for this while the rich, including the politicians pushing for this tax, will carry on as always??



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Travlla
 

I agree with you 100% and so do the majority of tax paying aussies....otherwise we would already have the parasitic....make the little person pay tax.... Why cant we have the mining tax so that the profitiers of our natural resources.....our grandchildens future....pay now to profit at the futures expense.....
Greenies are just green....otherwise aussie's would have voted them in over mongrel labour and liberal...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Which part of the population is at home the most and would use more power everyday? The retired, unemployed, ill and disabled thats who!

They are the people who will be hurt and hit the hardest when anything to do with energy starts going up in price.

Thats wrong, unfair and unethical.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Essan
 



Humans are affecting the climate.


I don't think anyone would deny that but even the scientists can't tell us to what extent we are contributing.

Also, here in Australia it seems it will be the middle and lower income earners that will feel the pain of this new TAX..

If you have the money, you can afford to pollute..
How's that a fair system???


i remember reading somewhere that we contribute less than 5%, was a little while ago now so i will try to find the article

edit: found some links but these are not the ones i remember

www.geocraft.com...

blog.heritage.org... - this one says in terms of co2 we contribute just over 3%

not the best website i know but i have just got up

edit on 4-6-2011 by ironsjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Vitchilo
This whole business is a big scam.

It is. But that's not the scientists' fault. Any more than Walton and Cockroft were responsible for Chernobyl.


I guess that depends on what the scientists are saying and also what they're NOT saying..

I mean, now the all seem to talking about the last 100 or so years..
Why are they not trying to explain the medieval warm periods??
Or many other know historic changes in climate?
We may not have instrument recordings from back then but we can certainly see from writings that climate has changed many times, well before fossil fuels were used..


What they never seem to include in their analyses is the effect of nuclear bombs on climate, and the effects of the HAARP facility which constantly heats the ionosphere with billions of volts of electricity.

According to this website: www.johnstonsarchive.net...

There have been a total of 2402 known nuclear bombs detonated since 1945. And then there have also been several nuclear accidents.

And these are only the known ones. Not the ones that have been exploded underground and not reported, which I believe is possible.

Some of these 'nuclear tests' were nukes which were exploded high in the atmosphere.
www.johnstonsarchive.net...

Does this affect our ozone layer?

I've never seen a report detailing the effect of all this on the climate, yet I can't believe it has had no effect. Do we have any idea what this is doing to our planet, our climate and to life on our planet?.

And what effect is HAARP's constant heating of the ionosphere having on our climate?







edit on 4-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 





HAARP facility which constantly heats the ionosphere with billions of volts of electricity.


Volts are meaningless in this case. Whats the figure in watts?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheKingsVillian
 



edit on 4-6-2011 by tri-lobe-1 because: because i stuffed up



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Well in Australia our Government counts "bushfires" into man made pollution !!

I mean lets be fair, many bushfires are natural occurrences from lightning strikes etc..



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TheKingsVillian
 


Hey KV,
I agree with you 100%......Why do they [the soft hand,flower smelling..girly men] always pick on the dog at the end of the line.....is this the Australian way these days?...it seems so...that's the university educated bean counter fashion of the month,...man this grieves me....and there's no end to this fascist crap from the mongrels whether they be labour,liberal or mamby pamby greens....



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travlla

Originally posted by Seagle

The person that says the majority of Australians are against the carbon tax needs to turn the radio off, stop buying newspapers, and stop watching sheeple news on TV. Rudd won by a landslide on an emissions trading scheme policy and then when he bowed to the media pressure and delayed it the public crucified the party for it. Just because the likes of Alan Jones and Piers Ackerman have an agenda, their audience does not represent the majority of Australians.f?
edit on 4-6-2011 by Seagle because: (no reason given)


That would be me,funny the people i talk to are not on the radio or in the newspapers,what do you read the Green Party weekly? Left wing green voting hippies do not represent the majority of Aussie's mate
Rudd won the election because of Work choices,to say it was because of the proposed ETS is pure BS


If the majority wanted a carbon tax why didn't Gillard go to an election on it?No much better to deny your party is going to bring in a carbon tax,then 6 months later bring it up again,lying bitch she is,
Bottom line mate if the the majority of Australians wanted a carbon tax,Gillard would have used it as a platform for last years federal election,we don't and she didn't.


OK so you're saying you want Abbotts direct action tax? That is the two options, there is no in between. You can go with Tony Abbott who doesn't believe in climate change but he is going to tax you directly out of your pay packet anyway and give it straight to multi billion dollar businesses like BHP in the hope they use it to develop cleaner technology. Your electricity bill will keep going up as normal regardless. Lose/Lose for you unless you are one of the big polluting companies

Alternatively, labor will charge the multi billion dollar businesses a carbon tax and the money raised goes towards helping you pay for any increased in electricity prices. The incentive to not be taxed will drive competition because the companies that lower their carbon use the quickest will have the cheapest goods and service and therefore the greatest market share. Win/win for you, unless you are one of the big polluting companies.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It is because the carbon tax is just a BS elitist way to get the public pay for everything to make a greener oz.

-The tax per tonne levied against the polluters is passed on to the public to pay.
Then,
when they build new infrastructure to reduce their carbon tax, that again will be passed on in costs for the public to pay for it.
Then, the Govt will reduce their carbon tax because they are now 'green', The public wont get this back.

Double dipping for the corporations.

If we are to pay for all of this new infrastructure, nationalise it!

Power and water were deemed 'essential services' and were govt run because years ago they knew in private hands, people would be effected by profit hungry mongrels.

edit on 4-6-2011 by CitizenNum287119327 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by wcitizen
 





HAARP facility which constantly heats the ionosphere with billions of volts of electricity.


Volts are meaningless in this case. Whats the figure in watts?


Sorry, my mistake. I should have said watts.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join