Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Canberra's most awarded family
owned real estate agency

Protest sky writing over Canberra

By johnboy 23 March 2011 75

No tax

Kevin has sent in this picture of a skywriting effort with the following note:

Seen from tuggeranong today. Upside down and assailed by wind, the “no tax” was gone by the tine they wrote “Julia”

What was the carbon footprint of this joke?

Got an image of Canberra to share with the world? Email it to images@the-riotact.com .

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
75 Responses to
Protest sky writing over Canberra
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
S4anta 4:14 pm 25 Mar 11

Pommy bastard said :

FD10 said :

Anyone who has read my posts over the years, will now be peeing themselves laughing at the idea of me being a “member of the ALP”.

Agreed. He’s as much of labour voter as you have mastered the art of intelligible articulation of speech.

Pommy bastard 4:11 pm 25 Mar 11

Joeofcanberra said :

Plagerism – the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.

.

No it’s not!!!

Plagiarism is.

johnboy 4:08 pm 25 Mar 11

How about we agree it would have been best to include a hyperlink to your source and we all move on to something more substantive than screaming “plagiarist”?

Jethro 4:07 pm 25 Mar 11

Joeofcanberra said :

So please tell me how you know if they are linked to the oil industry? I don’t believe you one bit. So I offer evidence of the differing view and all you do is dismiss it because they are linked to the oil industry? They linked to it because they put petrol in therie car?

No. They are linked to the oil industry because they are paid vast sums of money by the industry to produce research that says what the oil industry wants it to say.

You can start here: http://www.desmogblog.com – it’s a reputable online source (used and quoted by media organisations such as the NY Times) that publishes information on global warming misinformation campaigns (that would be the campaigns funded by industries with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ie. the big oil companies)

Joeofcanberra 4:02 pm 25 Mar 11

Stevian said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Joeofcanberra said :

So please explain to me how I tried to pass my last post off as my own work

That would be where you did not acknowledge that your entire post was a cut and paste from a Wikipedia page.

+1

Gosh you guys sound like the usual leftist university student with no idea.

Plagerism – the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.

So i tried to pass off those quotes as my own original work? If I was doing that there would be no names next to the quotes, and I would be saying it was me with those ideas and theories!

And now we have to recognise wikepedia? Do they have a anti climate change view?

Sorry guys, this is the real world, not a university essay.

You all have made claims with NO Evidence. The fact is the scientific community is evenly divided on whether Co2 is the cause of climate change. You cannot argue that the majority of scientists agree that carbon is the cause of climate change. This is a myth portrayed by the Government.

So you dismiss evidence because in your mind it is plagersim. Well that only makes you look completly stupid, in only accepting what you have been told, without investigating it for yourself.

Remember the scientists who said the world was flat and the sun revolved around the world? And anyone that questioned this was killed or put in prison?

And now any scientist againt climate change or the cause amazingly is automatically linked to an oil company.

Its like me saying that any pro climate change scientists are a member / supporter of the Green Party, on the Governemnt’s payroll or the UN’s Payroll.

And please don’t tell me that these scientists believe a carbon tax will bring down temperatures. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support this.

michcon 2:41 pm 25 Mar 11

Diggety said :

Renewable energies are promising and will likely make a contribution to a non greenhouse gas dependent energy future*. But that are not an option sitting idly, ready to be rolled out at the moment we switch off the coal fired power stations, contrary to propositions alluded to by the Greens party and reports such as “Beyond Zero”. The latter does more harm than good to those tasked with research and development of renewable energies by promising too much, too soon.

Diggety,

Can you please expand on your thoughts around the deficiencies of the Beyond Zero proposal? I read the report cover to cover (yes, it took me a week) and heard Matthew present it in person. Although I don’t consider myself an expert in power generation or economics, I found it thoroughly researched and worthy of every consideration. Thanks look forward to your reply.

Stevian 2:25 pm 25 Mar 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Joeofcanberra said :

So please explain to me how I tried to pass my last post off as my own work

That would be where you did not acknowledge that your entire post was a cut and paste from a Wikipedia page.

+1

Stevian 2:24 pm 25 Mar 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

Where did this myth that carbon dioxide is a pollutant come from? Carbon dioxide is a basic building block of life. Plants breathe it and it benefits society as a whole. If anything we have a shortage of carbon dioxide in the world and we urgently need more. More carbon dioxide means more life. Do you think God would have put Man on the earth if Man alone had the power to destroy the world by overpopulating and breathing out too much carbon dioxide? The Master Plan does not include this scenario, it just can’t happen. And it won’t.

.

Religion is the refuge of the Scoundrel — Samuel Johnson

And I would add the ignorant. .

Joeofcanberra said :

So please explain to me how I tried to pass my last post off as my own work

That would be where you did not acknowledge that your entire post was a cut and paste from a Wikipedia page.

Pommy bastard 2:00 pm 25 Mar 11

Do me a solid and point out where I did that?

Ditto.

Erg0 12:54 pm 25 Mar 11

Diggety said :

Jim Jones, Erg0 and Pommy Bastard give a good demonstration of the seemingly popular assumption that one who disagrees with the carbon tax, also rejects the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Do me a solid and point out where I did that?

Joeofcanberra 12:49 pm 25 Mar 11

MHW

He cut and paste from a wikipedia page (without acknowledging his source which as we all know is plagiarism).

In.

Definition of Plagerism – a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.

So please explain to me how I tried to pass my last post off as my own work, when the names and qualifications of the people who said the quotes? (are you guys serious about being well informed educated people and know the meaning of basic words?)

Mental Health Worker said :

I didn’t read all of Joeofcanberra’s post, but scanned it – very few of those scientists are in the right field. Astronomers? Geologists? Puhlease….

MHW

So you have to be a Climate scientiest to have a an accurate view of this? Thats like saying people who work as a checkout operator in the supermarket are the only ones who can comment on customer service because they are checkout operators.

Science is more then just climate. If the climkate is changing like it is supposed to, the physics, and astronomey science will back this up. It doesn’t.

Lets get this straight, not all scientists agree with carbon being the cause of climate change. It is only the climate scients on the UN Payroll that are pushing this agenda.

Jethro said :

Joeofcanberra said :

a whole bunch of stuff that I won’t repeat

So I went and researched some of the names of the people quotes. Pretty much all of them have some form of link to the oil industry./quote]

So please tell me how you know if they are linked to the oil industry? I don’t believe you one bit. So I offer evidence of the differing view and all you do is dismiss it because they are linked to the oil industry? They linked to it because they put petrol in therie car?

I’ll say that the climate scientists pushing the extreme climate change agenda work for the UN. And there are massive holes in their theories and evidence.

Please tell me what a reputable scientist is? ONe that holds your point of view?

Ok that list was just a start but there are thousands of scientists who disagree carbon is the casue of global warning.

The point I made about the ozone layer was to show that the predictions the expert scientists made were WRONG!! And green house gases including Co2 were taught as being a cause.

SO show me this so called data of climate change increasing. I am not going to bother putting names and references on here anymore to support my position, because the truth is nothing will change your opionion.

In regards to the lie about Australia being the biggest polluter per capita, There is 2 solutions. We increase our population by 20 million and get a lower per capita figure, or we start killing people. What about cows? The methane they produce is the 2nd largest pollutant in Australia!

And 6 billion people farting everyday!

And what about Volcanos who can spew in days the amount of Co2 a country emits in one year!

troll-sniffer said :

Any person, supposedly intelligent and informed, who does not realise that that the huge number of people on earth producing the huge amount of additional CO2 that we as a species are generating, has increasing and observable impacts on the global heat balance, and puts the global warming down to natural variations, just doesn’t get it.

I am intelligent. I am informed. The only solution to your comment above is to have a world war and kill a few billion people. And how will a carbon tax fix this?

Nobody has been able to explain how a carbon tax will decrease the temperature and stop climate change.

Shouldn’t the Government be using a carrot instead of a big stick?

The data is flawed. The agenda is set. A multi billion dollar emissions trading system under the guise of Climate change, an excuse for Governemnts to tax more and make those in the industry waelthy. WHy did AL Gore suddenly come out with his movie out of nowhere?

Have a look at Al gore’s lifestyle, it totally contradicts his message.

And when 2020 comes around and non of the predictions made have come true, will we get a refund from the carbon tax?

Diggety 12:42 pm 25 Mar 11

Jim Jones, Erg0 and Pommy Bastard give a good demonstration of the seemingly popular assumption that one who disagrees with the carbon tax, also rejects the theory of anthropogenic climate change. This, in my experience, is rarely the case.

Personally, I am against the carbon tax but I also agree that ACC is a possibility, if not likely.

There are far better mechanisms and endeavours for reducing greenhouse gas emissions without involving a tax at all. I see this tax and others like it as just a redistribution of wealth, and a shame that environmental issues (esp. ones as important as ACC) are being used to push other political, social and economic agenda.

The “science is in” line is also false in the context of proper scientific process. Research, debate and rechecking findings and measurements will continue for a long time. Some of that by the very nature of the research (time dependent experiments for example).

The IPCC report was not commissioned for scientific debate, discussion or agreement. It is a collation of findings. It was intended to provide governments, financial insurance and related industries clear information and an update on the last report. All these industries required some indication of probability. In fact, the outcome of the IPCC report for scientists asked more questions and found more errors than it solved as some contributors noted.

Scientific consensus is a general agreement, which is not part of the scientific method and certainly not an indication of scientific fact. You will not here a scientist claim ACC is a scientific fact.Apart from one 3rd year climate science student I met who did not know the definition of “scientific fact”, but that’s another story.

Climate science is a relatively new field and one which has unfortunately been thrust into the political arena for too early for its stage of maturity. This has flow on effects not only for this field, but also science in general. You’d be shocked at how much scientists- including climate scientists- don’t know about Earth’s climate. Anyone with a decent background in science will be alarmed at some of the measurements used and conclusions reached in some of these studies, on both sides of the debate. The integrity of science is under threat, IMO.

Renewable energies are promising and will likely make a contribution to a non greenhouse gas dependent energy future*. But that are not an option sitting idly, ready to be rolled out at the moment we switch off the coal fired power stations, contrary to propositions alluded to by the Greens party and reports such as “Beyond Zero”. The latter does more harm than good to those tasked with research and development of renewable energies by promising too much, too soon.

There is a lot of hatred and irrational mud being thrown at coal energy and the industry behind it. But coal has been key to our current status of living standards; in fact, it’s likely a lot of us wouldn’t be living if it was never an option. The complete cessation of coal use or CO2 emissions in general would see us go back to the stone ages, if we survived that far. We need to continue to find feasible alternatives and switch to those sources smoothly (I don’t think the carbon tax encourages a smooth transition).

So I suppose the point of my rant is:
1. Political position does not equal a scientific issue
2. Validating the theory of ACC is a ongoing scientific process, have patience.
3. There are legitimate reasons one could be against the carbon tax, but that is a matter of opinion (not much to do with science)
4. There is no silver bullet for energy, we actually need coal at the moment

* Until something like thorium reactors come online making solar thermal, solar PV, coal, geothermal, tidal, uranium, hydro and wind obsolete (wind for the second time in history).

D2 11:41 am 25 Mar 11

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster said :

The anti carbon dioxide crowd seem to be atheists or atheist sympathisers. They don’t like people who have large families (Catholics), they think religion and belief is evil and they hate humanity. The campaign against carbon dioxide is closely aligned with so-called sustainability which has as its aim a dramatic reduction in population and a lower standard of living. That will lead to stagnation, no more economic growth and jobs being lost.

😀 This gets my vote for Idiotic Post of the Year.

shadow boxer 11:29 am 25 Mar 11

Evidence of ‘every reputable scientist’ agreeing of the new ice age please?

It’s outlined in the well known clash lyrics

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Meltdown expected, the wheat is growing thin
Engines stop running, but I have no fear
‘Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

Does it sound familiar, I think before that the Bogey man that was going to kill us all was acid rain.

Seriously though, I could look it up but I couldn’t be bothered, ask anyone old enough what was taught in schools in the 80’s

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site