ZB00N
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: Fudged Poll On Emissions Trading??? But Of Course!! |
 |
|
Emissions Omissions
Terry McCrann
July 29 2008
HILARIOUS QUOTE: And only 69 per cent said yes please, as soon as
possible?????
QUOTE: The poll was clearly designed to arrive at its dodgy outcome, to
try to head off this week>s likely, sensible, change in Coalition policy
on emissions trading.
So, it appears more than two-thirds of Australians are turkeys voting
for an early Christmas?
Well, perhaps understandably, if the 'turkeys' are 'told' that Christmas
means basking in the summer sun rather than the truth: a basting for a
summer barbecue.
The dark green lobby group, the Climate Institute, claimed yesterday 69
per cent support for an emissions trading scheme to start by or even
before the government>s announced 2010.
That>s to say, more than two-thirds of Australians demanding the
earliest possible start to something that it going to hurt them badly
and utterly pointlessly.
Not surprisingly, considering the question put to them in a poll for the
Climate Institute. Talk about push-polling: this is what they were
asked.
The government has proposed a scheme to "address climate change, which
would make 1000 of Australia>s largest carbon polluters pay for the
carbon they produce". When would you like to see it start?
And only 69 per cent said yes please, as soon as possible?
The question presented a complete falsehood.
The emissions trading scheme does nothing to "address climate change".
There is nothing Australia can do to address climate change. We are
totally hostage to what the US and China do.
The poll was clearly designed to arrive at its dodgy outcome, to try to
head off this week>s likely, sensible, change in Coalition policy on
emissions trading.
Climate Institute CEO John Connor intoned that the poll showed the
"dimension of the political risk that the Coalition would take if it
adopted a weaker position on climate policy."
The truth, of course, is that the Coalition would betray not only its
role but its duty to ordinary Australians, if it didn>t oppose such a
reckless, costly and utterly pointless plan.
It would also be political stupidity of the highest order to support the
government>s planned attack on the basic livelihood of ordinary
Australians.
These sorts of dishonest exaggerated claims by climate change believers
are of a piece. We saw another example from Barry Brook in yesterday>s
paper, purporting to rebut last week>s piece by my colleague Andrew
Bolt.
Andrew can have the pleasure of his own dissection of Brook>s fatuous,
substance-free ramblings. One sentence though was just 'too delicious'
for me to let pass.
"Indeed, if 1998 really was the global warming high point, then why was
it an average of 0.33C cooler between 1989 and 1998, but a whopping
0.48C lower the decade before that?" Brook asked in anticipatory
triumph.
We>ll leave aside Brook>s hysterical ridiculousness describing just
0.15C -- less than one-sixth of a single degree -- as "whopping."
Focus on the more basic, monumental stupidity. Let me simplify what he
wrote. So you think 1998 was the global warming high point. Well, smarty
pants, how come the years before 1998 were progressively colder?
Er, Barry, that>s how you build to a 'high point'.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24092876-36281,00.html
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the
suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our
schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -
that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As
'the
ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average
citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance.
.... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the
position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ...
Marcel Leroux
It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is
contradicted by the facts/measurements/observations and should
therefore be abandoned and be substituted by a hypothesis which
better matches the facts.
- Hans Labohm |
|
