Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into
the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr.
Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd.
It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1
kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway.
We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to
imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's
atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's also hard to believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
ETS is now being debated in Federal Parliament - is it too late for
reality to prevail?.

Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into
the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr.
Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd.
It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1
kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway.
We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to
imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's
atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's also hard to believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
ETS is now being debated in Federal Parliament - is it too late for
reality to prevail?.

reality has not prevail with our pollys on both sides for a long time
now and they did not all die of aids at number 96 smh what on earth will
you think of next

abigail

Well the producers certainly had problems Abigail...
I reckon I messed up, and apologise.
"ted" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into
the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr.
Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd.
It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1
kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the
roadway.
We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to
imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's
atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's also hard to
believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair
away.
ETS is now being debated in Federal Parliament - is it too late for
reality to prevail?.

reality has not prevail with our pollys on both sides for a long time now
and they did not all die of aids at number 96 smh what on earth will you
think of next

abigail

Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit
over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into
the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr.
Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr. Rudd.
It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1
kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd says we have a
huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway.
We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to
imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's
atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's also hard to believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
ETS is now being debated in Federal Parliament - is it too late for
reality to prevail?.

Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along
it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A
bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres
left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts
into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what
Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers
till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd
says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human
hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to
blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial ******** I
have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested interests has been
responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the last few years but this is
outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball understand
the issues and force them to make better choices. This tract contributes
nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are fuzzy
and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a scientist so you
won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspriracy theories, they are just an easy way out of hard
problems and really don't explain anything or provide any useful course of
action.


David

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and weather
patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a branch of
the weather department, who cant get it right from day to day.
They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance of less
rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern is what I
think is causing the extra heating the planet is experiencing.
Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too much of)
lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.
Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.
Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy overseas.
Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty there.
So where is all this climate change guff coming from? America.
Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely to
benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.
Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?
My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.
Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know, but thanks
for your input....


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon
pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along
it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A
bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres
left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts
into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what
Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers
till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr. Rudd
says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human
hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to
blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial ******** I
have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested interests has been
responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the last few years but this
is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball understand
the issues and force them to make better choices. This tract contributes
nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are fuzzy
and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a scientist so
you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspriracy theories, they are just an easy way out of hard
problems and really don't explain anything or provide any useful course of
action.


David

Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A
bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres
left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts
into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to
what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers
till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr.
Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's
a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to
blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a scientist
so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather and
the fact that predicting each is a quite separate problem so your interest
in science has not been time well spent.

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern is
what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out yourself
if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the evidence.

Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from? America.

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man made is
international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the IPCC and our own
climatologists if you don't like America.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.

Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show me the
evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it isn't
useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a personal attack?

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who have spent
their lives working on the problem and for the world to reverse the trend by
reducing human generated emissions of greenhouse gases. We need to get over
burning fossil fuel and the sooner the better. No I don't have any quick
and easy method for doing that, it is going to be a long hard slog with many
hard lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not contributed much
thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know, but
thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable containing a
number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to know its origin, where
did you get it? How much time did you put into verifying its content before
you passed it on? I am betting on none: you liked the message so you copied
it for our benefit.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies. This
isn't any improvement.

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said what and
when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

D

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A
bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres
left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts
into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to
what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers
till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr.
Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's
a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to
blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;

You aregood at belittling things that you figure are meaningless...

- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;

Its obvious that I too have sources of information, which are not
necesaarily rubbish, but informed opinion.
It appears the saying " A lie can travel the world before the truth hits the
ground" doesnt mean anything to you.
The sources are the BBC and "scientists" who have a difference of opinion
with others.
When this happens, it means someone doesnt really know whats going on.

The heasline in scientifi circles read "scientists discover new planets"
when really all they did was find out the stars were wobbling due to gravity
pull, assuming this was due to planets being present. A reasonable
assumption, but not the full story. Untill the full picture emerges, there
can be no planets discovered. The stars are only wobbling....

- learning some science or at least enough to understand a scientist
so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather
and the fact that predicting each is a quite separate problem so your
interest in science has not been time well spent.

http://www.solarpanelarticles.com

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern is
what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out yourself
if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.
Where?
Show me your evidence. You arent doing this either.

There's an old anecdote about Einstein. A hundred (or a thousand or ten
thousand) Nazi scientists got together and signed a paper denouncing
Relativity.

Einstein is said to have remarked, "if they had been right, they would have
needed only one scientist!"
Where is the one scientist who will say this?

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the evidence.

Emotional? Assumption. just why would I do this...
Theyre spending money on things when poverty is
Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from? America.


The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man made
is international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the IPCC and our
own climatologists if you don't like America.
No one said I didnt like America. I said it appears to be :
A vast difference.

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths engage
in.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.


Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show me
the evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it isn't
useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a personal attack?

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths engage
in.

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who have
spent their lives working on the problem and for the world to reverse the
trend by reducing human generated emissions of greenhouse gases. We need
to get over burning fossil fuel and the sooner the better. No I don't
have any quick and easy method for doing that, it is going to be a long
hard slog with many hard lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not contributed
much thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know, but
thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable containing a
number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to know its origin,
where did you get it? How much time did you put into verifying its
content before you passed it on? I am betting on none: you liked the
message so you copied it for our benefit.

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths
engage in.
I believe the Internet is as good a source as yours.
We can prove or disprove anything, but once money comes into it, it becomes
clear that people will lie
to gain an advantage.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies. This
isn't any improvement.

That is your opinion.
That is not proven by you show me/us somefacts. Its rhetoric too...

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said what
and when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

Dont top post? It seems like some do get confused easily.
Jonno...
D

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpre...lobal-warming/
Warning Top poster resides here....

This story changes as years go by.
Now its climate change, and if scientists cannot agree between
themselves, then is is impossible for me OR you to do so.
Case closed.
Just understand one thing. Global warming allowed Norsemen to travel via
the northern seas, to settle in North America.
But as there is very little evidence of that, as they died quite some
time ago, due to global freezing perhaps, doesn't mean it didn't happen
in the past.
Cynical attempts to disprove my gut feeling on this subject doesnt mean
I have to prove anything to you. We'll be a long time dead before
anything is proven.
Climate has changed in the past, and there's very little puny man can do
to change it in the short term.
But I feel the "sky is falling profits, lets make some dough" people
CANNOT BE BELIEVED...

Jonno wrote:

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A
bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres
left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts
into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to
what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers
till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr.
Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's
a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to
blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;

You aregood at belittling things that you figure are meaningless...

- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;

Its obvious that I too have sources of information, which are not
necesaarily rubbish, but informed opinion.
It appears the saying " A lie can travel the world before the truth hits
the ground" doesnt mean anything to you.
The sources are the BBC and "scientists" who have a difference of
opinion with others.
When this happens, it means someone doesnt really know whats going on.

The heasline in scientifi circles read "scientists discover new planets"
when really all they did was find out the stars were wobbling due to
gravity pull, assuming this was due to planets being present. A
reasonable assumption, but not the full story. Untill the full picture
emerges, there can be no planets discovered. The stars are only
wobbling....

- learning some science or at least enough to understand a scientist
so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and
weather and the fact that predicting each is a quite separate problem
so your interest in science has not been time well spent.

http://www.solarpanelarticles.com

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern is
what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out
yourself if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.
Where?
Show me your evidence. You arent doing this either.

There's an old anecdote about Einstein. A hundred (or a thousand or ten
thousand) Nazi scientists got together and signed a paper denouncing
Relativity.

Einstein is said to have remarked, "if they had been right, they would
have needed only one scientist!"
Where is the one scientist who will say this?

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the
evidence.

Emotional? Assumption. just why would I do this...
Theyre spending money on things when poverty is
Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from? America.


The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man
made is international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the IPCC
and our own climatologists if you don't like America.
No one said I didnt like America. I said it appears to be :
A vast difference.

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths
engage in.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.


Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show
me the evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it
isn't useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a personal
attack?

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths
engage in.

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who have
spent their lives working on the problem and for the world to reverse
the trend by reducing human generated emissions of greenhouse gases.
We need to get over burning fossil fuel and the sooner the better. No
I don't have any quick and easy method for doing that, it is going to
be a long hard slog with many hard lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not contributed
much thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know, but
thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable
containing a number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to
know its origin, where did you get it? How much time did you put into
verifying its content before you passed it on? I am betting on none:
you liked the message so you copied it for our benefit.

BLAMING THE VICTIM for any attack is a diversion that only sociopaths
engage in.
I believe the Internet is as good a source as yours.
We can prove or disprove anything, but once money comes into it, it
becomes clear that people will lie
to gain an advantage.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies.
This isn't any improvement.

That is your opinion.
That is not proven by you show me/us somefacts. Its rhetoric too...

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said
what and when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

Dont top post? It seems like some do get confused easily.
Jonno...
D

Jonno wrote:

snip
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to
imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's
atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's also hard to believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
ETS is now being debated in Federal Parliament - is it too late for
reality to prevail?.

I'm quite confused about the ETS - I had a 1KW solar installation put on my roof in April, mainly to try to
lower my ever-increasing electricity bill but also because of niggling worries about my carbon footprint (the
jargon trips all-too-easily off my tongue); got the government's $8,000 rebate (thanks Kevin) and then, out of
the blue, got another $800+ for carbon credits or somesuch. I'm not quite in my dotage, so I reckon if the
installer had told me about that, I would have remembered. My qualifications are in History, not Science -
which speaks a language I don't - but it seems to me that if I cut my carbon footprint down and, by doing so,
through carbon credits enable someone else to continue ad hoc, all I am doing is maintaining the status quo.
I'd also like to know what profit the purchaser of my carbon credits made by selling them on to a power
station or whatever. It seems that once again, fat profits are being made by the middleman - and if you can
prove me wrong, I'll be happy.

--
Anne Chambers
South Australia
totally out of her depth

anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

You're quite right, and of course. The case in Victoria this last week where
one chap installed such a system, where he was pumping energy in the system
using a supplied meter doing so, gaining credits, was changed to a meter
which couldn't do this.
Done on purpose? Of course.
As a matter of interest: Electricity meters get less accurate as time goes
by.
Water meters do also, as so gas meters. But, when they show less than
energy, product or whatever consumed, they changed them.
Guess which meters weren't?
I got a credit of some two hundred dollars in 1985 for a over reading
electricity meter.
So why aren't they changing these meters?
Because more modern ones work against the supplier, except for the
"specially " tailored ones of course.
10 percent is quite an inaccuracy.
But as David Hare Scott would say " show me the cheque you cashed for this
amount twenty years ago..."
Sorry, I might have kept it, but its gone missing.
Meanwhile I'll be the witness on that....
As far as carbon credits go.
Youre right. Paying peter to allow Paul to keep on polluting isnt in the
planets interest.


"Anne Chambers" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:

snip
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to
imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's
atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's also hard to
believe
that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair
away.
ETS is now being debated in Federal Parliament - is it too late for
reality to prevail?.

I'm quite confused about the ETS - I had a 1KW solar installation put on
my roof in April, mainly to try to lower my ever-increasing electricity
bill but also because of niggling worries about my carbon footprint (the
jargon trips all-too-easily off my tongue); got the government's $8,000
rebate (thanks Kevin) and then, out of the blue, got another $800+ for
carbon credits or somesuch. I'm not quite in my dotage, so I reckon if
the installer had told me about that, I would have remembered. My
qualifications are in History, not Science - which speaks a language I
don't - but it seems to me that if I cut my carbon footprint down and, by
doing so, through carbon credits enable someone else to continue ad hoc,
all I am doing is maintaining the status quo. I'd also like to know what
profit the purchaser of my carbon credits made by selling them on to a
power station or whatever. It seems that once again, fat profits are
being made by the middleman - and if you can prove me wrong, I'll be
happy.

--
Anne Chambers
South Australia
totally out of her depth

anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A
bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres
left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts
into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a kilometre.
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to
what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers
till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr.
Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's
a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to
blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a scientist
so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and weather
and the fact that predicting each is a quite separate problem so your
interest in science has not been time well spent.

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern is
what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out yourself
if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the evidence.

Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from? America.

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man made
is international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the IPCC and our
own climatologists if you don't like America.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.

Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show me
the evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it isn't
useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a personal attack?

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who have
spent their lives working on the problem and for the world to reverse the
trend by reducing human generated emissions of greenhouse gases. We need
to get over burning fossil fuel and the sooner the better. No I don't
have any quick and easy method for doing that, it is going to be a long
hard slog with many hard lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not contributed
much thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know, but
thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable containing a
number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to know its origin,
where did you get it? How much time did you put into verifying its
content before you passed it on? I am betting on none: you liked the
message so you copied it for our benefit.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies. This
isn't any improvement.

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said what
and when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

D

An item by Mclean show us this is not crap but a believable natural event
http://tinyurl.com/twisted-story