Agreed, Jill Singer: the nonsense has to stop


Jill Singer supports a carbon (dioxide!) tax. Unfortunately, she shows a complete ignorance of the real science behind the politics.

THE “debate” over a carbon tax in Australia has become high farce.

Indeed it has. The Left seem to think that taxing the bejesus out of a trace gas will somehow save a planet that doesn’t need saving. Jill and her ilk fail to realise CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas at that. It makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere. Most of it is natural. The sceptical side has man-made CO2 at 3% or about 0.001% of our atmosphere. The alarmist side puts man-made CO2 at ten times higher. But so what? That means man-made CO2 would occupy 0.01% of our atmosphere.

There’s no way Man’s small contribution to a minor greenhouse trace gas – yet an essential gas, most of it naturally occurring – can be the main driver of climate. That hypothesis is, to use Jill’s words, a “high farce”.

Read more of this post

Climate Commissar Tim Flannery: Prius Person & Panasonic Man


Does he wave that Panasonic flag out the window of his free Prius on his way to taxpayer-funded Climate Commissar gigs?

“A Climactic Immense Hogs-On”  indeed.

Tell me again how it’s the skeptics who are in all the Big Corporates’ pockets…?

N.B. Tim Flannery is NOT a dinosaur-bone expert.

Fight The Emissions Trading Scheme


In Australia, there are moves to create a tax plan based on carbon emissions, and this plan should be open to intense scrutiny. Via Andrew Bolt, I learned of a campaign to debate the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

This campaign is being launched by Jennifer Marohasy, and her plan and premise are clear:

I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:

1.  An ETS will not change the global temperature;

2.  Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and

3.  Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.

She’s quite right on all of it. Their aim is to raise $30,000 to create a website and launch a formal campaign to bring more awareness to the debate on the ETS. If you’re able, donate! Donations of more than $2 are tax-deductible, but as always, do your own research into the group before handing over your hard-earned.

The ETS proposed by the Rudd Government, if passed, means that depending on your tax bracket and earnings, there is a chance that you’ll be required to pay up to 90 cents of every dollar you earn in tax.

It’s a fight worth supporting, particularly when you consider how well the environment does do, when there’s enough water to help it grow.

sherbrooke-forest-1

Sherbrooke Forest: Lookin' Good

UPDATE: Slatts highlights just one article that proves that there needs to be a more open debate.

Tuesday’s “Comment of the Day.” Bless you, Bingbing!


Bless your fuckin’ little cotton socks, Bingbing!  Logged on to Bolt’s Blog at 6am (our time) on this cold, windy, rainy Perth morning and immediately saw this gem, in the post called “Rudd’s sneaky emissions caper”

Love it love it love it, Bingbing!  And, also love the fact that you gave a SFLT (stupid f’ing lefty twat, for the uninitiated) the vapours over your naughty use of the F-bomb — poor delicate Lefty petal Arty, he’ll be hyperventilating over that for the rest of the day 😛

UPDATE: I notice that 2 thread updates later, the comment is still there.  Good onya, Bolt/Moderators!

.

%d bloggers like this: