dumbanddumber - read or watch this!

Here you will see how all those dodgy sites that you link to with "no vested interests" work:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3458728.htm

Thankfully, ABC did my work for me (and much better job too!), i was getting tired of pointing out how dodgy many of your 'sources' were.

 

That looks far too tricky for Ozzers .
If you substitute the word , Beer or Lager , instead of , Water , it would read much easier and with greater flow ( !)

 

will look tonight

 

Ok what is your point because its gone straight over the top.

My opinion the murray darling basin is in trouble because of the ten year drought and irrigators limiting the supply of water that is fed into it.

Or are you saying that AGW is responsible for it drying up?

And that manmade CO2 which is 3% of 0.039 has caused AGW!

 

Here is a little experiment for you to do.


1. Using a ruler - make an estimate of the surface area of the skin over your whole body.

2. Then calculate what 3% of 0.039% of the surface area of the skin is. Call that Area A.

3. Use a fine tipped marker to mark an area the size of Area A onto the head of your penis (or a friend's penis if you haven't got one).

4. Jam a compass point into the marked area.

5. Get back to us and tell us if you find the results of your experiment "significant".

 

A good link which suggests that many journalists are too slack to do their job properly.

As for the topic itself, obviously vested interests are going to, just as they do elsewhere, buy expertise that suits them and pump it into the public domain in order to protect their interests against the general interest.

The Murray is in deep trouble, I live in Adelaide and appreciate what the river means to us. Unfortunately for SA we are subjected to the political wiles of politicians from Qld and NSW and Vic who all have vested interests to protect. Fair dinkum the existence of States is going to kill this country.

 

It wouldn't even be 1/100 of the area of the eye of my ****.

 

Oh! (*)(*)(*)(*) old Darlin'

You beat me to it!!

 

It is not so much about being slack as being pressured to produce more with less - so they take short cuts

 

The eye of your **** is 470 mm2 ?!?!?*

Wow! You should be on the telly!


So have you jammed the compass point in yet? How did it feel? Was it significant?





* The surface area of skin on an average human is roughly 2m2
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/IgorFridman.shtml

 

You know what one of the best things about the Media Watch report? We may be able to avoid having her appear on programs as a self proclaimed "expert" in climate change denial

 

Ok bugs i've done some pretty dodgy calcs myself and after i have posted them i have seen the mistakes.

But lets get this right once and for all.

First the total CO2 content in our atmosphere is 0.039%, thats not even 1% agreed.

what is 1% of 100 = 1 agreed

what is 0.039% of 100 = 0.039 agreed

How many times does 0.039 go into 100 = 2564 agreed

Now you say that the average human skin covers an area equivalent to 2 metres square (2m2)

Since 1 metre = 1000mm (mm = millimeters)

lets turn that value in to millimetres 2000 x 2000 = 4,000,000 mm2

Thats four million millimetres. agreed

Now to get the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere to be represented by a smaller area on the area of our skin............................

4000000 / 2564 = 1560mm2

Now we have an area 1560 mm2 (0.00156 metres 2) that represents the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere on a sheet of skin that is two metres squared.

If this area was a perfect square then the lengths of the sides would be 39.5 mm long. agreed

Lets check 39.5 x 39.5 = 1560.25............good enough. agreed

Now this area 1560mm2 represents the total amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, where 99.961% of the total amount of CO2 is made by mother nature herself thats right the Earth makes its own CO2 thats 99.961% of it.

Now we are told that manmade CO2 accounts for 3% of all CO2 in our atmosphere.

Therefore the area represented by CO2 produced by humans is 3% of the above area,

3% of 1560mm2 = 46.8 mm2

If this area was bounded by equal sides then the length of the sides of the square would be,

6.84 mm long by 6.8 mm long,

for the old times 1/4" x 1/4" on a sheet the area of 6-1/2' x 6-1/2'.

So there we were both wrong.

And AGW is the biggest SCAM ever fed to the peoples of the world.

 

It is irrelevant how big it is - it is what it will do to you that counts. Without Co2 we would be a frozen ball - that is easily verifiable so why will denialists not accept that more = more heat

 

AGW = science taylored to the views of the banking cartels and their corporations.

And you guys believe it?

Why not look at the whole picture, instead of opening your mouths to be spoon fed like little infants by your moma the IPCC.

 

When you can explain how your conspiracy theory works I might until then




I am not touching it with a barge pole!!

 

That is what I'd expect a CIA operative to say.

Clive is on to you and your hippy spy mates you know.

 

But Bugs don't you know that every climate scientist in the world has been captured by Al Gore and locked in a basement!!

 

Bower girl and Bugs

If you were serious about cleaning up our pollution and the Earth we live on, then the best way to do it is with direct action, just like the way we reduced our sulphur content in petrol from 10% to 6% here in Australia.

That is the then Howard government passed a law that by a certain date (giving the companies a few years to comply) the sulphur content in our petrol was to be reduced from 10% to 6%.

And you know what they all complied, end of story.

Have you ever asked yourselves is there a better way than a market based system? Is it the only way?

What is wrong with direct action here in Australia, juts like the sulphur in petrol case?

Fair enough we might have to spend a few billion ONCE and be the cleanest pollutters on Earth, if we can reduce our emmissions by 0.25% thats pretty good right.

The best way to do this would be to retro fit all existing plants with the below quote.

If the carbon tax wasn't a scam by foriegn powers to fleece the rich nations of their wealth, dont you think the consensus would be for everone to clean up their own backyard?

Why do we have to be a part of the United nations?

Why Australia got the most expensive carbon tax in the whole world when we are not even in the top ten polluters in the world.

Why is Gillard giving 10% of the carbon tax revenue to the Unted Nations Environmental Fund.

Julia Gillard and Bob Brown want a new world order they have farking said it themselves, praising this new form of government and saying they want to contribute to its establishment.

Now do you guys really want a one world government to rule over Australia.

What do you recon they would do to our country, well for starters they would sieze all the mining and oil/gas industries as their own assets.

Do you really want that, because voting for the carbon tax is a vote for the first global tax for this new world order.

 

Yeah... so, CCS will cost somewhere between $80-140 per tonne of co2 abatement. Once you've taken into account installation costs, reduced productivity, cost of transporting the co2, etc.

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy...aptureStorage_Garnaut2011_ET_PDF Standard.pdf

Seriously, when the productivity commission, and like... basically every economist in Australia says an ETS is the cheapest way to lower emissions, why do you think it's some big conspiracy?

If there way a way to massively reduce emissions that cost "a few billion", we'd be doing that. But, there just isn't.

As for the UN and "New World Order" stuff... I can't even be bothered getting into that, your position is just so stupid and ridiculous. Yeah... just cannot be bothered. lol.

 

With your impartial 'sources'?

Pot/Kettle.

You just don't get it. If i had time, i'd point out the 6-10 times i have tried to make it clearer but you just don't get it.

Why do you believe your sources over someone elses when there are vested interests all round? Bankers can make money almost any way, coal merchants can't. Who has the most to lose?

 

So that's why you post the things you post.

 

No Ziggy

Gillard;'s government is not interested in cleaning the environment, all they care about is collecting taxes while everything reamins at a status quo.

Gillard hasn't spoken one word of truth since she's been PM, especially when it comes to passing her achievemnts.

Boy i'm looking forward to through her out on her ear big time, something like QLD i hope.

 

If "all they care about is collecting taxes"

Why does Abbott say that repealling the carbon pricing scheme would save money?!?!?
“Not proceeding with the carbon tax would deliver $31 billion in savings over the forward estimates period with a net improvement of $4 billion in the budget bottom line.”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/02/repealing-a-tax-will-save-4b-er-no-tony-abbott/

That is a funny "tax"?!?!?! One that actually costs money!!!

The funny thing is, Abbott continues to call the carbon pricing package a tax but in the same sentence says that repealing it would save the government money — unlike any other tax in history.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/02/repealing-a-tax-will-save-4b-er-no-tony-abbott/

What about when she said she was prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term? That was true wasn't it?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

Or when she said:
"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

that was true wasn't it?

 

True to form BUGs misquotes again

from the link

forgot that bit

But what else did she say

and what else

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...er-julia-gillard/story-e6frf7l6-1226012681008

So, BUGs will not except what Gillard herself admits. Poor thing, owned by his own PM and still trying to re-write history to suite himself.

 

Are you trying to pretend that she DIDN't say:

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism?!?!?