# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 10:57am:


What actually is......?????

Like the hot spot or the deep ocean missing heat or that glaciers would all be gone by 2035, the hockey stick, climate gate...etc....etc.

Like I said lucky for you guys we have the sceptics...!!!

Otherwise you would take what the IPCC says as gospel..!!!

And pray to them like the ancient Greeks prayed to Mount Olympus and its gods.

HHHmmmnnn....I suppose Rajendra Pachauri would be your oracle......LMFAO......?????

Too bad he doesn't look like this.......

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:35pm:



Not lucky for me ol' son because from where I sit, the sceptics are equal share holders in the entire problem....

Pollution ongoing and destructive.

For my part the only constant that the sceptics come up with is that it could not possibly have anything to do with human activity. Of itself that is pretty problematic, they either;
a) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because it is far too important to be right about AGW or,

b) Do not even engage in talking about the real damage of pollution because they may need to acknowledge human responsibility for smacking up the ride....

Please by all means feel free to apply these same options to the other team.... It is equally applicable with minimal variation.

And, in short, that is what actually is....

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:



Um at the end of the day it is all just labels for pretty much the same shite different day kind of stuff.

For my money, the entire debate/argument/axe grind is the problem and I don't particularly care which team is which, they both need a label to differentiate them is all. That said, you are absolutely correct regarding what scepticism is according to its literal meaning. I will continue to use the term (incorrectly though) because it seems we have two labels both ultimately meant as derogatory that being, deniers and fear mongers.... Neither of which is particularly respectful, as such, I choose not to buy into them as much as possible.

In my experience one does not generally see the kind of rampant idiocy on display in these forums ("various axes to grind with them each time they enter these rooms to debate (if you wish to call it debating - more spin and miss information dissemination)") i.e. in public, because it seems that the internet is the place that many can ramp up their status to hero whereas in public they may become instantly accountable.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:


How so...???...if it wasn't for the sceptics most of the bullshit written by alarmists would be gospel...!!!!

Quote:


Once again pricing carbon will not stop our rivers and oceans and land from being polluted.

It will simply form a new market for wall street on human CO2 emissions.

Do you actually think pricing carbon will clean up our rivers, oceans and land from manmade pollution....????

Quote:


Sceptics are disputing the  pseudo science of the IPCC and other alarmist groups that all the warming in the last 60 odd years is due to manmade CO2 emissions.

They don't dispute that the Earth is warming or that manmade CO2 emissions may have a minor role to play.

Quote:


Which pollution are you talking about, because carbon pricing will not stop corporations from dumping chemicals and rubbish into our rivers, oceans and land.

It simply puts a price on Human CO2 emissions, NOTHING more 'ol son......!!!!!!!

Quote:


The other team worships gaia and her commandments, remember the orange people.....try telling them that they have been brainwashed.............????????

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:


How true...!!!.....well said.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 3:26pm:


I recall a proposal that simply applied a 1% tax on ALL financial transactions. This would collect about the same tax revenue as the current taxation system

That's 1% on every single financial transaction, transfer etc. The amount of tax collected from the stock market alone using a 1% tax is .

It will also mean that the GST would be 1%, and a flat rate on income of 1%.

I am sure most income earners would favour this

Ecxept for companies such as Fortesque mining run by Twiggy. Although Twiggy is in the top richest people in Australia, his corporate structure hasn't paid a single dollar in tax since its inception over 25 years ago.

Brilliant scam the rich have hey?

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:


You're not a sceptic. You don't believe in AGW for political reasons.

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:


Those are not the words of a sceptic.