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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
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..


Yes, bush fires are considered atmospheric pollutants, but nuclear tests aren't. That's fine government logic for you, lol!




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 

Please correct me if i'm wrong..... but neither party has offically stated a or b because their too scared of voter backlash.....and the gutless bastards,both labour and liberal will not annouce their intentions before the next elections because it could cost them a win.....the majority of Aussies will NOT vote for the carbon tax....
The mongrel party that wins will then reveal their plan....I pick up the soap for big bubber......and us dogs at the end of the line will have to pay.....and the greenies will go yeh,yeh,yeh all the way home....we've seen it before.....it appears to be the Australian way.....I won...therefore I have a mandate to do a,b and c....
And the rotten cycle continues.....nothing gets sorted to the betterment of us.....we just pay pay then die, but guess what....we pass this wonderful democratic system onto the children...your children.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Hhaha i love you!


You should really check out my Thread if you want to research the issue and see the debunking of many Al-Gore Sheeple Commence.
Heres Proof Global Warming (Climate Change) is a Fraud.!


I think more people are waking up to the scam that is AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming(Climate Change)) We realise its just one big PONZI SCHEME>

Read the thread for more details on the absurdity of the matter.
edit on 4-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Carbon tax is hypocrite and unfair.

Did we has a population demand,

to have everything over packed|?
to have cars that pollute instead of a cleaner system?
to have polluting electricity?

Our full system was based on polluting and trowing away everything that isn't new.

Omg, and I just realized this!! Read this please...


*****************************************
*****************************************
If government makes taxes with carbon emission, it means that if they find new way to pollute less, they will not let it out in public. It would be a big loss of money to find systems that produce less carbon. So the government will treat us like criminals for polluting and won't find anything to disarm us because it would not be in their interest. It's hypocrisy in one of the most evil forms I have ever seen!
*****************************************
*****************************************

I hope you won't miss my post, I never seen anyone think of this before or maybe I just missed it



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Your mad if you think this tax is going to do anything lets think about this for a second polluting companies get taxed for what pollution goes on right?

Then companies pass on cost of taxes to the public. So how do polluting companies wear the brunt of this tax alone? What forces are there for them to move to greener technologies?

Yes man has cut down trees surely this would be the biggest problem we face wouldn't it?

So basically we cut emissions and try and save our national parks and so forth but we are cutting down a huge amount of rain forest in other countries in the name of progress do these two things cancel each other out?

Less trees less CO2 but equates to the same as trees are being taken down?

One true way of having companies feel any effect is to give tax cuts for whatever green tech they switch to surely this way they would do something to get more money without really hurting the public with price rises.

Other problems with this whole market based problem is that it is open to manipulation from people with money to make more money out of us hell look at the money system how easy is that to manipulate to force a depression. Look i believe in climate change there are some things we can change for the better of our health but to say it is 100% us is a bit of a stretch especially only working from 30 years of records and leaving out other data which may go against your thoughts. I say it is the sun causing alot of our problems have a look at the hottest years on record then go and have a look at years of solar maximums you might find they are the same. Also to have someone giving weather forecasts from the suns activities 45 days in advance says even more. But you can believe a tax or an emissions trading scheme will work but at the end of the day it will do nothing but to create another market to manipulate and turn into a bubble to burst when ever they feel like it.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
Your mad if you think this tax is going to do anything lets think about this for a second polluting companies get taxed for what pollution goes on right?

Then companies pass on cost of taxes to the public. So how do polluting companies wear the brunt of this tax alone? What forces are there for them to move to greener technologies?



The force is called competition. The quicker they move to greener technologies the less tax they pay giving them a cost advantage in the marketplace. If none of the current big polluters move to greener tech then the door will be open for an outsider to come into the market and take business away from them. Its just like when Aussie Home Loans entered the finance market and took on the big four banks. They had no choice but to respond and drop interest rates.

Our cost for electricity will rise initially which will force a lot of people to start looking at how to lower their usage. This again will lower the profits of the big polluters forcing them to act.

The big polluters are spending rediculous amounts of time and money trying to stop the carbon tax. Why do you think that is? They do not have the publics best interests at heart, they know what it means for their industry. They will have to act, act fast or risk losing their market share in the coming years.

It is very simple economics that Labor has made an absolute balls up trying to explain and the big companies are doing everything they can to ensure the public doesn't undertstand. Whether people believe in climate change is irrelevant. What everyone needs to understand is that our economy relies on coal exports, if we don't lead the way in new technology there will be a big hole in Australias income in the years ahead. China is talking about reductions 4-5 times bigger than our 5% which will be disaster for Australia.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
Your mad if you think this tax is going to do anything lets think about this for a second polluting companies get taxed for what pollution goes on right? Then companies pass on cost of taxes to the public. So how do polluting companies wear the brunt of this tax alone? What forces are there for them to move to greener technologies?

One true way of having companies feel any effect is to give tax cuts for whatever green tech they switch to surely this way they would do something to get more money without really hurting the public with price rises.

Other problems with this whole market based problem is that it is open to manipulation from people with money to make more money out of us hell look at the money system how easy is that to manipulate to force a depression.


Do you not see the contradiction in your theory?.

"Your mad if you think tax is going to do anything"

"One true way of having companies feel any effect is to give tax cuts"

You are saying that you understand what, how and why the Carbon Tax policy works but you want the money to come out of Government Revenue. The problem with offering a tax cut off current levels is that this is an industry already paying to little tax and any cut would seriously erode government revenue meaning service cuts for everyone.

By adding a tax up front based on carbon it will get the ball rolling faster because these companies will want to minimise their tax as quickly as possible to gain a market advantage or remain competitive. The more they pollute the more tax they pay, the less they pollute the less tax they pay. The companies paying less tax are able to offer their service at a cheaper price to us meaning they will gain market share.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by whatisanameanyway
 


it is pretty sad when people are so afraid of the truth coming out that they have to threaten the scientist's lives. i wonder if it is still carry over from the bush admins negative attitude regarding science.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


No contradiction at all tax a company it gets passed on right? Give tax cuts the company will see the dollar signs but they would have to be significant cuts aswell. Instead of making solar panels and wind turbines to give them the right to pollute.

Do you not see holes in the system they want to put in place?

Have you seen the troubles we are going to have in the future when these panels are past their use by date go have a look at the chemicals that go into making them. Wind turbines last for 12 years max and the production of magnets for them is destroying farming land in China when are you going to learn all that is happening is the damage is being done somewhere else and not to fight for what is truely right is wrong.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


You really don't think brown clouds or mass deforestation or agriculture or industry or black carbon has any effect at all on climate? I guess if it's not in the Bible it can't be true?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by Seagle
 


No contradiction at all tax a company it gets passed on right? Give tax cuts the company will see the dollar signs but they would have to be significant cuts aswell. Instead of making solar panels and wind turbines to give them the right to pollute.



This sector represents the biggest portion of government tax revenue yet they already pay less tax as a percentage of profits than any other. Any tax cut that the Government gives them will result in a significant tax increase for you. That is why the liberals want to raise your tax first and then give them the money. If there was any way the Liberals could reduce tax on the industry first they would but even they know it would mean a massive hit to Government revenue that would require massive tax increases to everyone else.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


Where the hell did i say i was for Abbots tax? just because their is only 2 choices does not make either right,

So you think power is going to get cheaper,sure keep drinking that kool aid mate,I live in Victoria,our electricity comes mostly from brown coal,to reduce carbon output's millions if not billions would have to be spent on new infrastructure,do you really think the power companies are going to absorb those cost's or pass them on the consumer?
We have just had a new compulsory electricity smart meter installed,it cost me $400,it does not benefit me in anyway,who it does benefit is the power companies,they do not have to pay people to read meters anymore,saving them $,guess what ? electricity is not cheaper because of this, just more profit for the power companies,yes i pay $400 for a meter to increase the company's profit,

As for green energy,what is going to be able to supply a reliable power source?

What do you propose we do about the mass unemployment that would be inevitable if we shut down our coal fired power stations?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travlla
reply to post by Seagle
 


Where the hell did i say i was for Abbots tax? just because their is only 2 choices does not make either right,

So you think power is going to get cheaper,sure keep drinking that kool aid mate,I live in Victoria,our electricity comes mostly from brown coal,to reduce carbon output's millions if not billions would have to be spent on new infrastructure,do you really think the power companies are going to absorb those cost's or pass them on the consumer?
We have just had a new compulsory electricity smart meter installed,it cost me $400,it does not benefit me in anyway,who it does benefit is the power companies,they do not have to pay people to read meters anymore,saving them $,guess what ? electricity is not cheaper because of this, just more profit for the power companies,yes i pay $400 for a meter to increase the company's profit,

As for green energy,what is going to be able to supply a reliable power source?

What do you propose we do about the mass unemployment that would be inevitable if we shut down our coal fired power stations?



I'm not going to keep explaining the same thing again and again so last time and then you believe whatever you like.

Just for a minute forget about electricity bills, forget about climate change and forget about unemployment from coal fired power stations and focus on the real problem for the Australian economy which is this -




China is now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and it is seriously worried. Worried about its climate, pollution, water supplies and also it's international reputation.

Without waiting for the rest of the world, it has voluntarily adopted a target to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP by 2020, by 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels, but it is a demanding target and will require some very major changes in energy use in China. It is also likely to have profound impacts for Australia.


Link to article

The whole Australian economy now relies on Coal Exports to China and if sales to China fropped 5% we would be in trouble and they are talking 40-45% x 2020. Australia no longer has a manufacturing industry as most of it has moved offshore and our Agricultural industry barely exists compared to a few years ago. We are being used by multi-national corporations as a giant coal mine and as the demand for coal slows the likes of Rio Tinto and XSTRATA will just pack up and move on to their next venture while Australia will be left with massive unemployment, massive debt and nothing to sell to make up the huge whole in the economy. We will be in far worse shape than the US and Europe is now and they are broke. At least the US have weapons to sell, we will have nothing to make up the shortfall.

Australia should have been leading the way in green technology and we were but when the time came to commercialise them there was no investment money. Twenty years ago the Government was pumping money into any and every research project involving green tech and most Australian Universities were working on projects in partnership with Australian business to assist in the R&D. When the time came to commercialise them the Howard Government pulled the pin on funding and without local investemnt all the technology was sold overseas. Don't believe me, here is just one example - The UNSW department of physics spent 15 years developing a system that collected natural light and transported it from the roof via optical fibres down into every internal room of multi storey buildings. The energy saving potential was enormous and in fact is enormous because the technology was eventually commercialised a couple of years ago by a swedish company.

Anway, believe what you will but remember that when the mining boom ends so does the aussie economy until we have something to take its place. Whether you believe climate change is real or not is irrelavent.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Seagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


you are delusional to say the least did i say Abbotts plan no I didn't. Now one thing you mentioned deforestation surely this is the biggest problem doesn't matter how low you have emissions you still need trees. So if we keep ripping them down and reduce emissions we aren't going to achieve what you think we would.

Government has had 30 years to do something about it and they have failed big time yes we do export brown coal who cares are you saying you want to shut down all coal mines to stop people from using it? Yeah that will add to the unemployment queues that are going to get longer as we wear this tax. Now Sydney is saying yay we are going to have a whole heap of gas fired plants scattered through the city. Let's not worry about the fracking and the dangers that it poses to our water supplies which are apparently dwindling. This is one thing America is going through and Europe. Look everything is a cycle you can not change that and you can't try and change one area without readjusting everything else in that cycle it can't be done.

So here are your green tech solar panel and wind turbines as i said before go and have a look at what the problems are associated with solar panels when you want to throw them out they are the next asbestos style problem we are going to face. Then once you have done that why not go and have a look at the damage production of wind turbines is doing to the once great farm land that was there in China and also have a look at the damage China is doing and has done since trying to go for green tech with their hydro plant.

As i said before i'm for a cleaner way but an extra tax will not achieve it have a look at the countries which have gotten rid of it for reasons you will soon see as will mnay when they are heading to centrelink to be able to eat.
Why is it that government departments stop new ideas coming through or don't invest any money towards it? This my friend is one thing you need to learn and read carefully as long as companies are paying money into parties back pockets they will not govern for the people but for the companies which have paid then untill this stops nothing will change we will always be on fossil fuels until they run out.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by vkturbo
 


Are you responding to me? I haven't mentioned deforestation, I agree 100% with you about the dangers of fracking and the coal seam gas industry, and I agree 100% that big business basically owns the Government and dictates policy. Rudd was a perfect example because they considered him a pest with the emissions trading scheme but when they killed that and he responded by trying to implement a 40% mining rescource tax they went mental and had him removed.

The only thing we seem to disagree on is the economic importance of a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme policy to Australia. The major banks, investment firms and most big businesses other than the mining and energy sector now agree that it needs to happen asap.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I'm an agnostic. I don't confide in the absurdity known as Religion. You should try reading the my thread and come to your own discernment. If not don't bother!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


Why would a bank want this in place I wonder have you ever known a bank to be in something for the environment NO it's the money it always is have a look at the billions set to be made from this tax and eventually an ETS.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Please don't refer to the opinions of scientists that you get from media articles.

Find me a scientist that does not believe that climate change is a serious threat to our species and I'll find you 19 who disagree.

Blah blah blah.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Seagle
 


Cap and trade works a lot better using your reasoning.

The companies are just going to pass on the costs to consumers.

Its like the tax was designed to fail.

Some people think that doing something is better than nothing at all. This situation requires much more forceful actions though.

When all the AGW deniers realise they're wrong, I will be sitting back with a drink laughing, as I will have already accepted the end of the world as we know it long ago. You will be the most hated group of people in the history of the Earth.
edit on 7-6-2011 by seenitall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
This seems to be a good example of how opposing groups can be played against each other.

And what loses in this game? The truth.

Everyone on both sides is being accused of protecting their pocket books. But that's not an unnatural thing to do. The questions are: Is conversion to cleaner fuels really needed for our long-term survival, or isn't it? And would such conversion really be as great a financial hardship as those opposed to it say it would be?

If you go with hydrocarbons, and the costs of mining them and dealing with the ill-effects created by them continue to rise, how does that solve anything?

So it seems that we have attained a point where no one can be trusted and true facts are impossible to come by. So we might as well all take a side and help our choices bash in the brains of the others. But since when has that approach gotten humanity anywhere? I would tend to favor whoever is trying to solve this through discussion rather than violence.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join