Australia's global warming bill defeated in parliament
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
28 Comments
Login to comment
0
bushlover
I guess global warming isn't so much of a big issue down there as the whales. Aussies know that it will be the whales that will save us from global warming.
0
some14some
Congrats Australia, historical blow to Al Gore, hope other nations will follow and will avoid Copenhagen Summit !
0
Badsey
I wonder when CO2 became a pollutant? -Nobody told me this stuff was toxic.
0
WayneRooney10
Good on the Aussies, nobody believes in the warmening business anymore!
0
techall
@badsey:
CO2 is not a toxin but can be a pollutant, there is a difference.
0
SushiSake3
Ignorance has prevailed.
0
tclh
.This bill will be introduced to parliament again after Copenhagen, maybe early next year,not over yet, just starting.
0
Molenir
Actually, I believe that in defeating this bill, the exact opposite of that has occurred. Why destroy the economy for nothing. You'd have to be an idiot to go along with this scheme. Either that, or have invested in one of the green companies like Al Gore, and are looking to cash in.
Out of curiosity, who is it thats writing this stuff anyway? CO2 is not a pollutant, its plant food. At worst you might get away with calling it an alleged pollutant. Alleged by the global warming alarmists. How is it that this 'theory' with minimal support, supported mainly by fraudulent data, is still even being considered?
0
proxy
Badly written story that completely ignores the CRU data leak; the main reason Tony Abbott won.
0
DickMorris
Good news for Australia, the world and for the man made warming loonies.
The word is spreading that global warming caused by man is a myth spread by greedy crackpot scientists hellbent on obtaining money from tax payers.
I am so pleased well done Aussies, warming is made by nature and God, period.
0
Badsey
I want CO2 meters placed on every humanoid -these "polluters" should be paying me restitution in gold. And that damn sun has some nasty discharges and should be taxed also.
Your King has spoken and now you have the right to bow down you filthy polluter!
Moderator: All readers back on topic please.
0
dontpanic
CO2 in the atmosphere is not at a level to affect humans directly but that doesnt mean the deniers are right, it is a proven greenhouse gas and should be considered a pollutant.
In terms of effects on people, if you are in a confined space with elevated CO2 levels it will displace oxyge. At high enough levels people experience high pulse rate, sweating, dizzyness, nausea, disturbed vision and at higher levels (20% or more) people experience unconciousness, convulsions and death.
0
bushlover
[CO2 is not a toxin] See dontpanic's post. It isn't if you're a plant but is if you're a human.
0
sundoor
Conspiracy THEORY? Actual PROOF is not a theory.
You can download the UNEP emails and read about the fraudulent science cooked up to try to show the globe is warming when it has been and continues to cool and how to defame/persecute scientists that do not agree with the global warming hoax. Included are also the documents and programming info as to how to fudge the numbers to further the global warming hoax, as well.
UN scientists have been caught LYING and committing racketeering.
The global warming bill in Australia was shot down because of the criminal actions of the UN that have been exposed.
0
GJDailleult
Some Aussie pols stabbed their party leader in the back. They know about as much about climate science as the average JT poster does, so pretty meaningless stuff.
0
Molenir
Proven by whom? And how? The data that supposedly proved this has been deleted by those who claimed to have proven it. The same people who have been caught manipulating and lying in order to push their agenda.
Here is the reality. Each year, the Earths natural systems release CO2, its used by plants, and turned back into Oxygen via photosynthesis and other things. Of the total CO2 produced each year, mankind is responsible for about 4% of the total. 96% is produced by the Earth. Something else to consider. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been much higher historically. Thats been proven. The geologic record is solid and confirmed by many independent sources. Yet here we are. No runaway global furnace going on. The warmers want to scare you into thinking that we're all doooomed unless we act now. In point of fact, if we act the way they want, its our economy thats doomed.
0
donkusai
Well, here's a political party that has just doomed itself to opposition for years to come. They elected the least popular member on offer as their new leader and voted against an issue that polls show 68% of Australians were in favour of. Why? Just so they could "be seen as different from the government" as one party leader was quoted saying in an interview.
0
GJDailleult
Our economy is already doomed for a bunch of other reasons, or haven't you been paying attention?
0
Molenir
Are you serious here? You think 68% of the people were in favor of destroying their economy? Get real! And now that Global warming is being exposed as a fraud, how many people do you think are going to support economy killing taxes now. Particularly in the midst of a major recession? Whtast most likely to happen here, is that if Rudd keeps pushing this issue, its going to cost him at the polls when he calls the election.
0
dontpanic
"Proven by whom? And how? The data that supposedly proved this has been deleted by those who claimed to have proven it. The same people who have been caught manipulating and lying in order to push their agenda."
Proven by the overwhelming weight of evidence provided from multiple sources by observation, geologic review and records. Not just the guys who have been discovered discussing possibly of suppressing some data in one year, whos data still went on for peer review anyway.
"Here is the reality. Each year, the Earths natural systems release CO2, its used by plants, and turned back into Oxygen via photosynthesis and other things."
In addition to this, man has been digging up fossil fuels and adding this carbon to the attmoshere at an industrial level since the 1800s with huge increases from the middle of the last century. And more, large masses of stored natural CO2 have been released all resulting in a cumulative increase in concentration to over 20% since pre industrial levels. This extra CO2 is beyond the capacity of the worlds natural sinks to absorb. So whether Molinirs minor 4% increase is all the argument, or the overall increase to over 20% is it, the fact is global temperatures are rising and CO2 outputs continue to increase.
Anyone alive today can take the position that theres nothing to be done and if you live in a developed nation you will probably get to live a full and safe life, barring a few weather mishaps. Or you could take another less selfish view and invest in the future of the planet as a whole. For those that are worried about their wallets, the economic arguments for alternative energy production and carbon capture are pretty good too.
0
Molenir
Umm, sorry, but a consensus is not proof. And that 4% figure, its actually closer to 3.6% from what I read, I rounded up. The fact is, that nothing need be done. CO2 is not a "greenhouse gas". Nor is it a pollutant. If the levels in the atmosphere change radically, not just in CO2, but nitrogen, Ozone, or one of a hundred different components of the air, then yes, we should be worried, but minor fluctuations, when we have records of other fluctuations in the geologic record, sorry, no I don't think we need to spend trillions, and destroy our economy over what is nothing more then overblow hype and fraud.
Getting back to the science now. Science doesn't work by consensus. It works with facts not opinion. However AGW is based soley on conjecture. There is no direct proof that mankind is causing it. Nor is there any direct proof that mankind is not. There is only proof that the climate is changing, something we've known all along. Until there is proof, until there is not just a supposed consensus, thats based on fraud, but actual proof. The nations of the world shouldn't spend trillions of dollars, bankrupting their countries and enriching the UN and a few elites.
0
zurcronium
The scientific proof is overwhelming for global warming and only those with their heads firmly lodged in their rear quarters deny reality. There is something so strange about the faith-based right wingers in that they get everything backwards. WMD, wrong. Obama birth, wrong. Economy, wrong. And last global warming, wrong.
All you can say is that at least they all are consistent, that is consistently wrong. How easily the coal industry fools them all. And of course their drug addicted leader on the radio, tubby boy, lies to them all the time.
Back to top