Fancy joining the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics?

johnboy 18 June 2012 47

Warwick Huges has let us know he’s starting a political party to oppose the Carbon Tax and run carbon sceptical candidates in October.

While we here at RiotACT in no way endorse the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics (or any other particular party) we always welcome new players.

poster

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
47 Responses to Fancy joining the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics?
Filter
Order
JerryJohnson JerryJohnson 5:57 pm 03 Jul 12

Someone needs to let them know gently that they’re running for the wrong level of government.

Our education system is failing us.

HenryBG HenryBG 10:10 am 23 Jun 12

Yowie13 said :

My IQ is over 150 …

The Global CEO of Shell (the oil company) says the carbon price is the way to go:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-21/shell-keen-to-import-foreign-workers/4084702?WT.svl=news3

On the separate issue of climate change, Mr Voser says Shell believes all nations must act to reduce carbon emissions.

It advocates pricing carbon and has factored a global price of $40 per tonne into its business projections.

Mr Voser welcomes the Gillard Government’s move to introduce a $23 per tonne price on carbon from July, although he says Shell would prefer to see a full market mechanism.

“Australia needs to work on that in the long term rather than have a fixed tax,” he told 7.30.

Under the Government’s carbon pricing scheme, Australia will move to a fully flexible emissions trading scheme from July 2015.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has pledged to repeal the carbon tax if he wins government at the next election.

Mr Voser stopped short of criticising the Opposition’s plan although it is incompatible with Shell’s own policies.

In the event of a Coalition election win, he said: “We would offer our advice, our insights, on how we see the long-term energy market developing.”

The Shell CEO says countries that do not price carbon “will not attract the right investments in the longer term”.

I guess that’s the difference between a real person running a real company and a cranky pensioner with an “IQ of 150” whose current occupation is typing gibberish on the internet.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 12:32 pm 22 Jun 12

Yowie13 said :

They changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because NONE of the predictions have come to fruition. The Arctic was supposed to be Ice Free by 2012? Where is the huge sea level rises?

The UN moved away from AGW to “Climate Change” and will again move away from “Climate Change” to “Sustainability” and the Sheeple will follow.

Peer review means nothing when colleagues review each other’s papers. Scientific Consensus and so called experts mean nothing: “The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth). “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

The case for global warming has been made by the exclusion of data that contradicts it, by the manipulation of temperature records, by having far less weather stations worldwide than there were thirty years ago and having weather stations sited incorrectly providing warming bias. You can smear me as much as you like, call me a “Climate Change Denier” to try to link me with “Hollocaust Deniers”. But Climate change is REAL, only it is predominately NATURAL and other than for deforrestation (which I am against), mankind and CO2 has little impact on the climate.

Many of those supporting AGW don’t believe the rhetoric they are sprouting. Read “Talk Language” and “Write Language” by Alan Pease and then listen to them.

For the following I will be named a Conspiracy nut. I don’t care because conspiracies exist and have always existed, only the scale and complexities change. When Gillard deposed Rudd, she din’t wake up in the morning and say to herself “I think I’ll challenge Kevin for the leadership today” It took weeks or months to gather support. Look at the money that has been plowed into a “Cure for Cancer”. All we get are drugs extend life a bit, or a vaccine that MAY help. Any real cure is buried as drug companies make money out of illness. They won’t cure you because they can keep you using their drugs for 20 years or more. To Drug companies and governments we are a revenue stream. I personally know someone utterly destroyed by the AMA when he and a partner developed a “natural” cure for Melanoma that worked (even on some very serious cases).

If you want the ultimate goal of “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Sustainability” Look at the first principle engraved on the “Georgia Guidestones” and remember those “in the know” want to be included.

My IQ is over 150 and with any luck I’ll live long enough to see out the next two solar cycles. I’m Agnostic and don’t take anthing on faith’ let alone the prognostications of those who think they are in charge of us, including card carrying members of the “Church of Global Warming” who I personally rate a close 2nd in gullability to those in the “Church of Scientology”.

Wow, your IQ is only slightly higher than mine, but somehow you get everything totally wrong, which re-enforces my scepticism of the IQ test in the first place.

How dare you use the word “Sheeple” un-ironically, that just makes me want to punch you in the head. If you believe that s*** you’re spouting then you are certainly no genius, you couldn’t even match HenryBG in a battle of wits so please, for the sake of human dignity, STFU and GTFO.

p1 p1 12:17 pm 22 Jun 12

Yowie13 said :

Peer review means nothing when colleagues review each other’s papers. Scientific Consensus and so called experts mean nothing: “The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth). “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

And we now have radio, xrays and space travel because people who understand the principle of scientific investigation tested theories and improved or changed them.

Great satire by the way. You have really captured the essence of the internet nutter and showed as a beautiful caricature.

Deref Deref 11:42 am 22 Jun 12

Yowie13 said :

They changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because NONE of the predictions have come to fruition.

No. they changed it because people with absolutely no understanding of science thought that “global warming” meant that everywhere got hotter, which mean that the vested interests could say stupid things like “Today it’s 40 degrees. See – we told you! Global warming must be a lie!”

Mysteryman Mysteryman 11:41 am 22 Jun 12

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

My IQ is over 150

Stop it, you’re killing me.

It really is! He’s taken multiple online IQ tests…

Jim Jones Jim Jones 11:37 am 22 Jun 12

Yowie13 said :

For the following I will be named a Conspiracy nut. .

I agree with you on that point.

Woody Mann-Caruso Woody Mann-Caruso 11:37 am 22 Jun 12

My IQ is over 150

Stop it, you’re killing me.

Yowie13 Yowie13 11:09 am 22 Jun 12

They changed from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” because NONE of the predictions have come to fruition. The Arctic was supposed to be Ice Free by 2012? Where is the huge sea level rises?

The UN moved away from AGW to “Climate Change” and will again move away from “Climate Change” to “Sustainability” and the Sheeple will follow.

Peer review means nothing when colleagues review each other’s papers. Scientific Consensus and so called experts mean nothing: “The earth’s crust does not move”- 19th through early 20th century accepted geological science. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943. “Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899. “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932. “Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth). “Stomach ulcers are caused by stress” — accepted diagnosis, until Dr. Marshall proved that H. pylori caused gastric inflammation by deliberately infecting himself with the bacterium.

The case for global warming has been made by the exclusion of data that contradicts it, by the manipulation of temperature records, by having far less weather stations worldwide than there were thirty years ago and having weather stations sited incorrectly providing warming bias. You can smear me as much as you like, call me a “Climate Change Denier” to try to link me with “Hollocaust Deniers”. But Climate change is REAL, only it is predominately NATURAL and other than for deforrestation (which I am against), mankind and CO2 has little impact on the climate.

Many of those supporting AGW don’t believe the rhetoric they are sprouting. Read “Talk Language” and “Write Language” by Alan Pease and then listen to them.

For the following I will be named a Conspiracy nut. I don’t care because conspiracies exist and have always existed, only the scale and complexities change. When Gillard deposed Rudd, she din’t wake up in the morning and say to herself “I think I’ll challenge Kevin for the leadership today” It took weeks or months to gather support. Look at the money that has been plowed into a “Cure for Cancer”. All we get are drugs extend life a bit, or a vaccine that MAY help. Any real cure is buried as drug companies make money out of illness. They won’t cure you because they can keep you using their drugs for 20 years or more. To Drug companies and governments we are a revenue stream. I personally know someone utterly destroyed by the AMA when he and a partner developed a “natural” cure for Melanoma that worked (even on some very serious cases).

If you want the ultimate goal of “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “Sustainability” Look at the first principle engraved on the “Georgia Guidestones” and remember those “in the know” want to be included.

My IQ is over 150 and with any luck I’ll live long enough to see out the next two solar cycles. I’m Agnostic and don’t take anthing on faith’ let alone the prognostications of those who think they are in charge of us, including card carrying members of the “Church of Global Warming” who I personally rate a close 2nd in gullability to those in the “Church of Scientology”.

Thumper Thumper 6:58 pm 20 Jun 12

I’d like you to hold that thought while I remind you that it was Tony Abbott who personally instrumented the false charges on which Pauline Hanson was locked up, an event which helped bring about the disintegration of her party.

And?

p1 p1 6:12 pm 20 Jun 12

HenryBG said :

I’ve got to say – I was very disappointed with the lack of choices on the last ACT Election Ballott paper last time around.
Sadly, adding a grouping of screaming nutters to the mix isn’t going to improve it one iota.

There were plenty of screaming nutters last time ’round.

nobody nobody 6:06 pm 20 Jun 12

I’m also starting some new political parties, with causes just as valid as this deluded one.
Evolution Sceptics Party (ESP)
Sun at the Centre of the Solar System Sceptics Party (CSP)
Round Earth Sceptics Party (RSP)
Anyone wishing to join should just meet me at the pub, and bring some cash for membership.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 5:41 pm 20 Jun 12

c_c said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

If it brightens the political landscape, then let ’em go, I say. It’s not like they’re going to get much support anyway.

You know they probably said the same thing about Pauline Hanson and the Shooters Party at one point or another, and each of them has gotten in. In fact Shooters are holding the balance in NSW right now.

Yes, shooters are holding the balance of power, and as a result Nazis are slurping the blood of babies in Martin Place. Worse is to follow. :rolleyes:

p1 p1 4:52 pm 20 Jun 12

Baldy said :

p1 said :

I like the line “Conscience voting on matters relating to personal values”. I hope all the other parties adopt this. .

I don’t. I don’t elect politician just so they can go pursue their personal agendas. I hope they vote on what represents their constituents views are.

Ummmm, I vote for people I think will best represent my beliefs and ideals, and hope that they will vote thus. Actually voting the party line makes that easier for me, because I can largely disregard what a candidate actually thinks, and simply pick the party based on what the “faceless men of the party room” (damn I hate that term) decide to do, without the fear that the individual members that make up the party might suddenly have a change of heart and vote contrary to the stated position of the party (eg, the greens suddenly voting for nuclear powered whaling ships). The reason for hating “voting the party line” is that some times the majority of sitting members in parliment agree with something but voting on party lines blocks it (eg homosexual marriage on boats).

Baldy said :

On the other hand the way Australian politicians vote it is probably fairer then just a party vote.

I don’t understand what you mean by this – Australian politicians almost always vote with their party?

HenryBG HenryBG 4:32 pm 20 Jun 12

Thumper said :

“You know they probably said the same thing about Pauline Hanson and the Shooters Party at one point or another, and each of them has gotten in. In fact Shooters are holding the balance in NSW right now.”

Ah, this is called democracy.

You know, when people vote for who they want to represent them.

As opposed to who you want or think should represent them.

I’d like you to hold that thought while I remind you that it was Tony Abbott who personally instrumented the false charges on which Pauline Hanson was locked up, an event which helped bring about the disintegration of her party.

Democracy? Not if you upset the big boys.

I’ve got to say – I was very disappointed with the lack of choices on the last ACT Election Ballott paper last time around.
Sadly, adding a grouping of screaming nutters to the mix isn’t going to improve it one iota.

What we need are some local candidates who
– aren’t associated with the major parties
– indicate they will re-orient the ACT government to being a low-fee-charging Small Government dedicated to City Council issues only
– aren’t single-issue morons like the Motorists/Shooters/Climate denialists etc….

sien sien 3:38 pm 20 Jun 12

Evidently people are not familiar with Italy here.

But experts do agree on them and write editorially reviewed articles in the Italian press thus we can confirm that Italian soccer scores do not involve any collusion, group think or corruption.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:02 pm 20 Jun 12

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Anyone who thinks peer review in the science world is a bad thing, clearly is not even worth talking to about anything more than the footy scores.

Pfft … footy scores are all a massive conspiracy.

Baldy Baldy 2:47 pm 20 Jun 12

p1 said :

I like the line “Conscience voting on matters relating to personal values”. I hope all the other parties adopt this. .

I don’t. I don’t elect politician just so they can go pursue their personal agendas. I hope they vote on what represents their constituents views are.

On the other hand the way Australian politicians vote it is probably fairer then just a party vote.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 2:24 pm 20 Jun 12

Anyone who thinks peer review in the science world is a bad thing, clearly is not even worth talking to about anything more than the footy scores.

p1 p1 2:17 pm 20 Jun 12

I like the line “Conscience voting on matters relating to personal values”. I hope all the other parties adopt this. As an aside I always found the term “conscience vote” to be an interesting one, as it literally suggests that most of the votes our elected representative make in parliament are without conscience.

The Murray River in 1914 (before global warming)Also before there was 16 major dams through 145 kilometres of trans-mountain tunnels and 80 kilometres of aqueducts redirecting down it an entire mountain range worth of water (not to mention all the dams along the Murray itself.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site