18 June 2012

Fancy joining the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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

Join the conversation

47
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest
JerryJohnson5:57 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!”

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…

Yowie13 said :

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

I agree with you on that point.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:37 am 22 Jun 12

My IQ is over 150

Stop it, you’re killing me.

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”.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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?

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….

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.

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.

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_Nerd2:24 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.

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.

Scientists are supposed to be sceptical. Science is about one thing, the TRUTH. Consensus is a political term generally requiring compromises. Scientific Consensus is meaningless because one scientist speaking the truth is worth more than a million with consensus on a falsehood. Science is no different than any other field people choose to work in. Many people get to where they are by plagiarising the work of others. A true scientist can admit they are wrong and change the direction of their research based on new facts. But those who got to where they are by plagiarising the work of others will defend that position to the death because they are incapable of independant research. And there lies the flaw with peer review. Ideas and papers are often dismissed out of hand if they do not conform to the consensus paradigm.

I for one have joined the party. I know they cannot stop the carbon tax at an ACT level but maybe if a few can be elected throughout the country they may have some impact on a national level. However the problem is very few taxes are ever repealed. Federal Income tax was brought in, in 1915 as Australia was running out of funds because of World War 1. Once our polititians get hold of a revenue stream they do not like to let it go so my personal belief is that the coalition will not dismantle it. After all, Julia had her “No Carbon Tax” lie and little Johnny Howard had his “No GST” lie, so Abbott will find a reason he can’t dismantle the carbon tax.

Well Lucy Horodny got voted in all those years ago … so anything’s possible in an ACT election!

“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 like how they are also for ‘truth in Logic’ (capital L). I am also for truth in logic. Although perhaps I am for logic in Logic. Which might involve the truth. Or, at least, the truth within its own logical construct. But, then, arguing that defining CO2 as a pollutant is wrong is illogical (or ilLogical). Everything has the potential to be a pollutant. Try breathing pure oxygen when scuba diving. Or pure CO2. Both will kill you. In the right place at the right concentration, there is nothing that won’t cause problems.

Is it a sign of getting old when I think with nostalgia about how cute our previous nut case parties were, like the no flouride party – now we get ravers arguing about world government.

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.

OMG no! Politicians representing the people in their electorates?! What ever will we do?!

People vote for those they agree with, not those *you* agree with. That’s the beauty/curse of representative democracy.

thebadtouch said :

I thought it was the RiotACT that made nutters easier to identify!

I’m still laughing at this one 10 minutes after reading

ScienceRules said :

arescarti42 said :

All scientists worth listening to are sceptics. Outright rejecting something in the face of overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the international scientific community makes you a denialist, not a sceptic.

Calling themselves the “No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics” is misleading.

100

Real skeptics (those who accept scientific evidence about how the world works) can be found in organisations like Australian Skeptics and so on. These people are deniers and use exactly the same rhetoric and empty, made up “facts” that holocaust deniers and evolution deniers fool themselves with.

Martin Bridgstock wrote a very good article in The Skeptic December 2010 issue concerning ways skeptics can negotiate complex scientific controversies like climate change.

His article is here.

Who cares.

It’s not as if they’ll be a major political player.

In fact it’s highly unlikely that they will get a seat anywhere, federal, state or territory.

Primal said :

Well at least it makes the nutters easier to identify.

I thought it was the mandatory helmet law.

JOKING!

I meant Volvo. Stupid autocorrect.

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.

The lines about personal freedom and Australian sovereignty being replaced by a world government just proves the level of retardation that must be afflicting the people behind it.

World government now that’s an interesting concept!!…is that where humans come together as one in peace and harmony imagine that??

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:26 pm 18 Jun 12

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

I thought it was the RiotACT that made nutters easier to identify!

Well at least it makes the nutters easier to identify.

I can’t see what a ACT party will do about scrapping the Carbon Tax when it is ferderal legislation earmarked to be scrapped anyway.

They may as well just be call the “Climate Sceptics Party”, in which case I doubt they’ll have much luck fortunately.

ScienceRules1:30 pm 18 Jun 12

arescarti42 said :

All scientists worth listening to are sceptics. Outright rejecting something in the face of overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the international scientific community makes you a denialist, not a sceptic.

Calling themselves the “No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics” is misleading.

+100

Real skeptics (those who accept scientific evidence about how the world works) can be found in organisations like Australian Skeptics and so on. These people are deniers and use exactly the same rhetoric and empty, made up “facts” that holocaust deniers and evolution deniers fool themselves with.

Hang on, I missed it the first time. They’re running in the ACT Elections, carbon tax is federal law, so they’ll be able to do stuff all about it.

well, they would be able to scrap the 40% reduction target if they were so inclined.

I’m a Climate Sceptic, in that I don’t think we have climate. For goodness’ sake, it was called weather when I was a child soldier in His Majesty’s 5th (Irish) Battalion of The King’s (Liverpool Regiment). Back then, we sorted out the …..

Sorry, had a recollection of a previous life. Carry on…

Marching up and down the square.

DrKoresh said :

Beggars belief. *facepalm*

Indeed. Follow the money.

lolcentrist.

All scientists worth listening to are sceptics. Outright rejecting something in the face of overwhelming evidence and the consensus of the international scientific community makes you a denialist, not a sceptic.

Calling themselves the “No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics” is misleading.

Their name sounds like they are questioning the existence of this thing called climate altogether. The Weathermen?

The lines about personal freedom and Australian sovereignty being replaced by a world government just proves the level of retardation that must be afflicting the people behind it.

They should just be honest and admit they’re just xenophobe libertarians hiding behind the environmental debate.

And Bill Koutalianos should in particular be honest. He’s not centrist, he’s as partisan conservative as they come. A quick Google search for his name reveals comment after comment on sites, where he in particular attacks someone named James Hansen who he implicates as being part of a worldwide conspiracy.

Beggars belief. *facepalm*

I hardly find one dry river in 1914 to be an example of “truth in science and logic” that should be influencing political decisions on this matter.

I think the party might need a better name. Can I join No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics if I’m a “climate sceptic”?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.