Carbon Tax Poll

[Tannin]

Let's try the other one, shall we?

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ar...yer-rip-2011-0

What do we get with this second example of a "trustworthy" source, Lance?

• The article appears at CNS News, originally the Conservative News Service now renamed to "Cybercast News Service". CNS is owned by the Media Research Center (MRC), a far right-wing organisation which was explicitly set up to attack other news organisations.
• MRC receives funding from that same front for Gulf Oil, Alcoa, and Alcan, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, that we met in the post above.
• It also takes money from another old friend, the Bradley Foundation (that's the John Birch Society one).
• The Olin Foundation gets its money from chemicals and weapons manufactuiring. It gave away US$370 million to a variety of far-right causes including a campaign to relax American gun control laws and, of course, climate denial. MRC took an undisclosed amount of Olin Foundation money.

Well, at least this one, unlike the first one Lance relied on, doesn't seem to have directly taken money from big tobacco. Not on the public record, anyway. But it's funded by the same old collection of dodgy fronts for giant oil, munitions, and coal companies.

I invite you - all of you - to start trawling through the references that climate change deniers rely on for "evidence". It really is a fascinating journey into the heart of denialist darkness.

It's easy enough - follow the link, find out where the article has come from, then start hunting down the shell companies and the trusts until you find out who is paying for it, and what the "qualifications" of these fruitcake frontmen actually are. Check out their track records and, if you have a strong stomach, ponder their morals. I'd never actually done that for myself before, but it was quite easy, and a real eye-opener. I certainly didn't expect to find a real-live tobacco company dupe with my very first investigation!

[jim]

Oh lord, what to make of that garbled mess?

[edit] refers to #320 above, not to Tony's investigation of sources.

[WhoDo]

All this circular argument is making me dizzy! Has anyone changed their opinion as the consequence? The OP's post was a poll and the results are clearly in. The majority of us don't want a carbon tax; reasons are irrelevant.

[Tannin]

I agree, WhoDo - now that someone is taking the trouble to ferret out the dodgy sources and big oil finances behind the deniers fake "science", the best p[olicy might be to keep quiet for a while and hope no-one notices. Me, I would be too ashamed to take tobacco money.

[WhoDo]

Last word goes here >>> (see below)

[Tannin]

^ Sorry?



Actually, I have found it wise to always have the last words in any domestic situation.


Usually, those words are "yes Dear".

[Blueywa]

Follow the link and vote Yes or No.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/polls/popup...8-66c8f0e449a3

[Blueywa]

I have no doubt that our little planets climate is changing - as it does perpetually.
Clearing the worlds rain forests and jungles at the current rate certainly doesnt help nature balance things out either.
The reliance on fossil fuels is a major problem for those of us that have engines designed to use them, but to me its the same old thing: why punish me when I didnt create it?
I'm just a prisoner of the system which maintains a very high standard of living for the multi millionaires of the world, and they will be compensated much more than you or I.
I dont leave lights on in rooms that arent being used, I have installed solar panels on my roof to help reduce my footprint and power bills, I recycle what little rubbish I create.

I say NO to a carbon Tax and roll on the revolution

[Lance B]

Oh lord, what to make of that garbled mess?

[edit] refers to #320 above, not to Tony's investigation of sources.

What to make of it? Simple. We have global warming believers showing us footage of ice melting from the Antarctic as "evidence" of said global warming, all the while knowing full well that the Antarctic was actually increasing in size on the other side of the continent to the tune of 100,000sq kms every decade, but they didn't tell us about that, so we have selective reporting in order to bolster their case. They had to reluctantly admit that it was happening. This is typical of the way many of these people go about their reporting in order to convince us no matter what the cost or outcome. So, what I am saying is, just because these so called scientists who believe in global warming make statements we cannot just take it as fact as there are so many more variables involved and it is easy for them to miss these variables. The global warming believing "scientists" are not all pure as the driven snow and not everything they do is above reproach as the global warming protagonists here would like us to believe. It seems that they believe everything these global warming "scientists" say as gospel simply because they have this idealistic notion that they are all supposedly for the good of mankind and there are no agendas. It's so laughable it's scary. Now, they may not have known about the increase in the ice of Antarctica, or they may have known full well that it was occuring, but that is irrelevent as they should have known before making any pronouncements that this is proof of global warming.

Anyway, it is clear that the minority of people here are global warming protagonists and will not be convinced by me no matter what proof is forwarded or whatever they read from reliable sources. And as Waz says above, "All this circular argument is making me dizzy! Has anyone changed their opinion as the consequence?" Well, no because they are not going to admit it. The fact is, a carbon tax will do nothing, nada, zilch to the temperature of the world and it will not in anyone's woldest dreams shame any other country into introducing one as well. If they think that China, USA, India or Indonesia will be shamed by us into intorducing one, then they are living in la la land.

I leave you to your ignorance.

[junqbox]

I leave you to your ignorance.

Pot calling will get no-one anywhere

[jim]

I too am taking my leave from this thread for now. It's been enjoyable, but as others have observed, ultimately an exercise in futility. Not to say somewhat frustrating.

But it has been educational.

[nzmacro]

Its an interesting one alright and very subjective. Does get kind of heavy though

[ving]

The last word... muffin

Sent from my TR718D

[ving]

Go and take some photos you lot!
Thats an order

Sent from my TR718D

[geoffsta]

The last word.... Ummm. No gravy WOW

[Tannin]

I think it is important, for the record, to subject some of the ridiculous claims above to proper analysis using hard evidence, so that we can start nailing untruths to the wall where everyone can see them for what they are, and verify that they are indeed worthless claims.

That's quite time-consuming (it took me two or three hours yesterday to research and write up the shadowy background to those fossil-fuel funded carbon denialist front organisations I exposed in detail above) and I'm tied up for the next day or two, but I'll try to find the time when I can.

[Mark L]

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/o...0711-dgl6.html

[ving]

Every time i see the word denialist on here, i read dentist....
Those dentists have alot to answer for!




Sent from my TR718D

[ameerat42]

Every time i see the word denialist on here, i read dentist....
Those dentists have alot to answer for!

Sent from my TR718D

(I did too.) And you can't deny that!

[I @ M]

Hmmmm, the government hype says that the average household won't be worse off but using their calculator it tells me that we will be be paying $9.00 a week extra for a rebate of $16.00 a year.