jump to navigation

Breaking: Julia Gillard repeals Carbon Tax March 31, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in fun stuff.
Tags: , , , , ,
trackback

Julia Gillard repeals Carbon Tax

Australia: April 1, 2012

Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has announced she will be repealing Australia’s $23 per tonne Carbon Tax, which was due to be implemented on 1 July 2012.

She said it was embarrassing trying to defend her climate change advisors whose predictions kept failing. “It’s one thing when experts make predictions and they are slightly wrong,” she said “but when the complete opposite happens, then there is something drastically wrong.  It’s clear to me now that the sun drives climate change. The Carbon Tax will therefore not be implemented on 1 July.”

She was referring to the numerous predictions made of permanent drought in Australia due to man made global warming. Australia has since experienced record breaking flooding. Also 2011 was Australia’s coldest year in a decade, defying an established trend to higher temperatures.

“All funds to man-made climate change research will be stopped with immediate effect” she said “instead, the millions of dollars will be put into cancer research. With this massive increase in funding to cancer research, we expect to find a cure for cancer within the next 5 years.”

1st April 2012 (April Fools)

About these ads

Comments»

1. TinyCO2 - April 1, 2012

LOL.

2. karin1941 - April 1, 2012

WOW – I did not think I would live to see this day – wonderful!

3. karin1941 - April 1, 2012

Is this and April fools day joke?

4. Dude - April 1, 2012

Heh ….April Fools!

5. Wendy - April 1, 2012

if you’re going to do an April fool’s joke at least make it in the realms of possibility!!! LOL

6. Otter - April 1, 2012

Beggar. You got me.

7. SOYLENT GREEN - April 1, 2012

Saw the headline and forgot you are a few hours ahead of us. Well played.

8. omanuel - April 1, 2012

Restoration of sanity – re-establishing contact with reality after sixty-six plus (66+ yrs) of insanity – will not be that easy.

Fear and the instinct for survival caused world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to lose contact with Reality*: E = mc^2, after the first man-made “nuclear fire” vaporized Hiiroshima on 6 Aug 1945:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

Here are a few of early events leading to Climategate:

01. Hiroshima vaporized (6 Aug 1945)

02. World War II ended (14 Aug 1945)

03. Kazuo Kuroda analyzed Hiroshima ashes (Aug 1945)

04. First UN General Assembly meeting (10 Jan 1946)

05. First UN Security Council meeting (17 Jan 1946)

06. UN General Assembly adopts first resolution (24 Jan 1946)

07. Abrupt U-turn in beliefs about Sun (1946)
“The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 106, 343-383 (1946)
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-15

08. Kuroda: Self-sustaining nuclear reactors were on earth (1956)

9. B2FH reported, “Synthesis of the elements in stars,” Reviews of Modern Physics 29, 547-654 (October 1957): http://rmp.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v29/i4/p547_1

10. Twenty-six years (26 yrs) later, Kuroda reported:

“Until recently, scientists believed that the chemical
elements were synthesized only in stars. The dis-
covery of the Oklo phenomenon in the Republic
of Gabon in 1972 has revealed, however, that a
nuclear “fire” had existed on the earth and large-
scale transmutations of the elements were occur-
ring on the planet 1.7 x 10^9 years ago.”

http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-21

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n556224311414604/

Fear and the instinct for survival caused world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to lose contact with Reality: The force* that sustains life and Earth’s climate is the same force* that creates and destroys chemical elements.

* http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Neutron_repulsion.pdf

9. roberts - April 1, 2012

I woke up this morning looked out the window and saw a bunch of pigs flying past and I could have sworn one of them looked like Julia and the other a bit like Wayne.

10. MostlyHarmless - April 1, 2012

“With this massive increase in funding to cancer research, we expect to find a cure for cancer within the next 5 years.”

Oz voters expect to find a cure for Gillard within two years.

11. mike50allseas - April 1, 2012

THERE IS NEVER EVER ANYTHING REMOTELY FUNNY ABOUT THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE. EVERY DAY THOUSANDS DIE AS A RESULT OF THE KYOTO DEBACLE!

12. roberts - April 1, 2012

Reply to MostlyHarmless:

Don’t know how many will make it, a lot will have perished by then from Juliar desease or acute Gilliarditis.

13. kim2ooo - April 1, 2012

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

14. Graeme Howard - April 2, 2012

The experts Julia relies on are not in fact experts. The real experts have been ignored. Millions, in dollars and resources have been, and continue to be, squandered as a result. It’s high time bogus ‘climate science’ and the demonizing of C and CO2 ceased. The ‘scientist’ perpetrators of the myth and disciple commentators, including economists, media and politicians, need to be hauled over the [carbon?] coals, or better still, charged with perpetrating falsehoods, based on fake data manipulation and a breed of ‘science’ more accurately described as ‘crankery’.

15. omanuel - April 2, 2012

Reality is benevolent. World leaders live in fear and are on the verge of destroying humanity out of fear of “reality.”

Budda awoke to reality and tried to explain what he saw.

Einstein awoke to reality and expressed it as E = mc2: Mass is stored potential energy.

The reality revealed by precise space-age measurements and observations is just this:

1. We are bathed with a continuous flow of energy coming from the Sun – a pulsar encased by an iron-rich mantle and hidden from view by a glowing cloud of waste products (91 percent H; 9 percent He).

2. Energy comes to Earth as solar luminosity and stored energy in the form of atomic rest mass of the chemical elements.

3. Life is a natural process in the region continuously bathed with energy flowing from the pulsar cores of ordinary stars, like the Sun.

16. MostlyHarmless - April 2, 2012

Should humans, whose bodies contain 18% carbon, or 66% CO2 by weight, be taxed on that, or receive a rebate for sequestering CO2?

17. roberts - April 3, 2012

Could any one of the expert bloggers out there explain to me how after the CO2 levels rising from 285 ppm to 385 ppm man’s contribution is still only 2.75% or 3% rounded off.
Was there ever a time when that was below the above average.
My question is should not this percentage figure increase as we put out more CO2 or this another incovenient truth overlooked by the alarmists.

18. MostlyHarmless - April 4, 2012

I’ll have a stab – human emissions are rising, natural emissions are rising, natural absorption in biomass and oceans is also increasing, so the human contribution to emissions has remained largely unchanged in the past few decades. The 3% or so didn’t apply before then, it’s a recent estimate, and it IS an estimate, as are all the other associated figures. No one knows for sure what human emissions amount to, no matter what you read.

19. omanuel - April 4, 2012

Problem: For sixty-six (66) years, since Hiroshima was vaporized on 6 August 1945, world leaders have secretly worked together to:

(1) Unite nations, avoid nuclear war, reduce nationalism and racism;

(2) Reduce the integrity of science, basic rights of citizens and their control over government.

Solution: Restore integrity to science, rights of citizens and citizens control of government, without reviving racism and/or the threat of nuclear warfare.

Documentation is given in my abbreviated profile and references cited there: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

20. roberts - April 5, 2012

Reply to MostlyHarmless…Many thanks for your response.

I have another question..The temperature of the earth’s core seems to vary , depending on the source, between 3500 to 6000 degc with some others suggesting even higher temperatures.
I don’t know what the confidence level is in their measurements but my question is this: Is the surface of the earth, the part we live on including the oceans so thoroughly insulated from this heat that every scientist can swear that it in no way can influence the surface temperatures by any means with 100 % certainty.

21. MostlyHarmless - April 7, 2012

roberts:

The standard response would be that the effect is very small, only a tiny fraction of one watt/sq.m of surface, so really makes no difference. I’m not so sure that’s entirely true, that the physics has been rigorous enough. For instance, as you descend in a mine, the temperature first drops, then begins to rise. Some very deep mines would have temperatures in the 40s or 50s C, if the air wasn’t cooled.

IMHO that drop then rise with depth needs explaining, and I haven’t seen a convincing explanation. Why isn’t there a steady rise with depth, as common sense would suggest? The other side of the coin is that several estimates of geothermal surface heating have been done in the context of CO2-driven warming, and I’d suspect that there’s a bias towards assigning the effect a small value in a fairly large range. This kind of bias is common in all kinds of research, but is rarely identified as such. I’d say there’s a similar bias in calculations of heat emitted by volcanoes, and there are many more under the sea than on land, along with undersea hot vents. Some geologists suggest much larger values than the “consensus” is willing to accept. It’s that word again.

22. roberts - April 8, 2012

MostlyHarmless: thanks .

The more one explores the more the questions keep popping up.

The oceans on this planet are so vast that they cover 70% of the earth’s surface and surely common sense would say that we really know very little of what goes on underneath the surface especially at the deeper depths.
Yet the alarmists always make statements that suggest there is no room for any other explanation.
As an example take the warming oceans, would it not make more sense to see if there is a possibility that something underneath the waters could actually be causing that.
Take the gakkel ridge

http://www.scienceandthesea.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=10

which runs under the north pole, although I’m not suggesting that it is responsible for the melting ice caps, makes you wonder what could be going on considering again the fact that we seem to be sitting on a planet which could be an undeveloped star.
The gakkel ridge is part of the rift that extends all around the planet some 80,000 km or so mostly underwater and makes it’s presence felt from time to time via the horrendous earthquakes that destroy life and property.
How much heat is released from one of these massive earthquakes and how long would it take for that heat to dissipate before another deep-sea fissure vents itself.
Lets take the rift valley in Africa which is being filled in by the Atlantic ocean, how much energy in the form heat is being released to pull that part of the continent apart.
The alarmist scientists are quick to point out that these eruptions are only minor and of little consequence.
While this might be true if they are once off events, but what if these are continuing events and vary in intensity from year to year and decade to decades and even centuries, what then.
They never talk about these possibilities do they.

23. MostlyHarmless - April 8, 2012

roberts:

“Yet the alarmists always make statements that suggest there is no room for any other explanation.”

Of course they do, anything else dilutes the argument that it’s all (whatever “all” is) due to fossil-fuel burning and the consequent dreaded CO2. Ignoring or belittling all the other factors will be their undoing. I’m constantly amazed by this Earth and all that’s on, in and above it, and in awe of the power of nature. Alarmists seem to be afeared of it while they profess to want to “save” it. Save it by dotting the horizon with bl**dy windmills? Save it by covering pristine deserts with solar panels? Save it by burning forests to make electricity? Save us by forcing us to pay for expensive and dilute “renewable” electricity when we’ve got access to highly concentrated energy in the form of coal, oil, and gas?

Hansen has just said he’s afraid that we’ll bequeath to our grandchildren a “climate we’ve lost control of”. When have we ever had control of the climate? The man’s deluded, or mad, or both.

Rant over (for now), so ponder on, do your own research, believe no-one (including me), and come to your own conclusions. Why are so many willing to buy second-hand opinions with many previous owners? They’re welcome to them, I’d rather use my brain than someone else’s any day. You never know where they’ve been.

24. roberts - April 10, 2012

reply to Mostly Harmless: Spot on !!
your comment ” I’d rather use my brain than someone else’s any day. You never know where they’ve been.”

Love that comment, may I borrow it.

Bob

25. MostlyHarmless - April 10, 2012

roberts:

Feel free – my comments come without royalties or fees of any kind. I was going to compile them into a book, but ran out of Write-it notes. C’est la vie, as we say (but warmists & greenies never do).

26. roberts - April 11, 2012

reply to Mostly Harmless.

many thanks and wish you luck with the book


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: