Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
When will they admit that their models are flawed? It is only a matter of time. I just can't believe they are ignoring the obvious evidence.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 41 to 43 of 43
30-01-2012 08:36 #41Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
03-02-2012 23:32 #42Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
200 now dead with more cold to come. Not a good outlook.
The drop in global temperature for January is quite pronounced.
A colder climate is much more dangerous than a warmer one.
04-02-2012 09:41 #43
Working in the food manufacturing industry I have had a good look at what the carbon tax policy will do and basically for my company it will mean additional costs. Costs that we can't by the way pass onto the market as our product price is set by international demand for our product, not by our production costs.
The only thing government is offering in compensation is that they will co-fund any environmental technology we want to implement. The problem is, we don't have the money to even begin to try to purchase such technologies, so we ain't gonna get that funding.
So what will happen? Basically we are one of the last manufacturing companies in our industry that is still Australian owned, the rest of our industry has been bought out mainly by the Chinese and other Asian investors. So when we can no longer afford to keep going, these type of investors will come in and buy our company at a bargain price and then they will have control of the food our company produces.
The end result, Australia will not control its food production industry. Which could be really problematic if an Ice Age did come or if the predicted world food shortages come to pass.
That's the effect of carbon tax as I see it. Its not going to improve our climate.
This also leads me to the point of counting carbon production based on per capita. My question is, wouldn't most of Australia's carbon production be as the result of our country and its resources being used to produce food and minerals for other nations of the world? So China is doing great things providing environmentally friendly technology, but aren't they using the metals that we produced (thereby increasing our reported carbon output) to do so?
Ahh so we should tax it so that at least we can get money off the foreign investors who are causing this increase of carbon output, but as I showed above, what that actually does is cause the Australian investors to go belly up, and control of our industries goes to overseas companies...
I completely agree that as a society we should be wary of climate change and be investing in technologies that will help us deal with such possibilities. I am however frustrated with those who believe themselves to be 'Green' not being able to see the bigger picture when it comes to things like carbon tax policy. As a person who has also worked for government and for some time also as an accountant in government business, I would say to anyone that if they think government will use tax monies collected effectively to fund life-saving environmental technology they are kidding themselves. It will just go mainly towards funding bureaucrats to argue with bureaucrats about how to best spend that money. Oh and they will have lots and lots of meetings about that and enjoy a great many lattes as they do so.
If you are truly green, then encourage the government to give grants or loans to businesses to become more environmentally friendly (co-funding doesn't work when you are so close to bankruptcy already and are introducing even more costs at the same time), don't support a government that is going to destroy Australian ownership as a result of its out of touch good intentions.
I would have no issue with scientific claims of climate change if I felt that this information was then used by our government to find ways to safeguard our continuing ability to control our ability to produce food and to safeguard society from the fact that one day we may need to use things like solar power instead of being able to rely on fossil fuels. But its not being used that way. Climate change science is being rejected because it is held up like a big stick, we are threatened by it and told we need to pay for our bad behaviours. Climate change science would be accepted if it was used to say to people, sheesh things could get really tough either way, whether it gets colder or hotter lets all do something together that can help us be ready for either eventuality. Let's stop wasting time trying to punish, or strutting around feeling good about how we are so clever and those 'silly idiots' who won't listen are going to doom us. If you provide carrot incentives, even 'silly' people will be happy to help out, because they get rewarded for it.
I don't understand why that is so hard for society to realise??
Innovations Sports PhysiotherapyWomen’s Health Physios who are able to assess and treat a wide range of Pregnancy and Post Natal Issues. We offer ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Flying with a 7 month old - overnight or during day better?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Really fast letdown causing vomiting?Breastfeeding Support
WOW what a shockWorking Hubbers - Employed
Am I the only thread killer??General Chat
IUI QueryNon-IVF fertility assistance
Brisbane Couple Looking At IVFSame Sex Parents
Chickenpox after being immunised?Pro-Vaccination
I'm totally confused.Conception & Fertility General Chat
Tell me about Ringwood/Donvale etcGeneral Chat