"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Bill Gates approves Carbon Tax for poor people!

One of the world's richest men ,Bill Gates has swanned into Australia saying he approves of the carbon tax which obviously would not make any change to his billionaire lifestyle. However in Australia to those in struggle street the tax represents a huge impost with small business and retirees especially hard hit and statements like that from Gates are not appreciated.

ONE of the world's richest men, Bill Gates, has given a tick to Labor's carbon tax.
Mr Gates, the founder of Microsoft who's holidaying in Sydney with his family, said someone had to lead on tough global issues and it had to be hoped that by setting a good example, others would follow.
"I wish the world at large found it easier to get together on this because a carbon tax is a very important tool to encourage the invention of low-cost energy technologies that don't emit carbon," he told ABC Television.


  1. Well if you want your pro-warmist message to hit the airwaves with maximum Climate Catastrophe bias, where else would you go but the ABC?

  2. If you need proof that the entire global warming thing has been hijacked for political purposes, go here.

    While there actually might be a real danger, how soon before the alarmists admit that they were very, very wrong?


  3. Seems to me that there are two basic questions which the hysterical Warmists need to answer.

    (1) Is it true that 97% of atmospheric CO2 is from natural processes and 3% is from human activity? If that's true, how could tiny changes to that 3% make the difference between the planet being baked to death, and continuing more or less as it is now?

    (2) Is it true that the long-term historic record shows that atmospheric CO2 level variations happen about 800 years *after* global temperature changes? If that's true, how can CO2 concentration possibly be driving temperature?

    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand such basic issues, but the warmists in their zeal refuse to see that.

  4. That is similar to one question that I have been asking - how can a rise of 0.025% of a gas have the claimed effect on the climate?

    The answers I have been given are all relating to chemical interaction ("Try increasing your bodymass by 0.02% by ingesting strychnine."), whereas surely the effective of CO2 has to be physical (""what would happen if CO2 was removed from the atmosphere?"
    The temperature would drop by over 30C. Known for 150 years.
    " Is it?).

    What was the CO2 level 1,000 years ago, when Greenland had farms?


  5. One thing that I have noticed on various sites (and, in advance, please pardon my pigeon-holing, but it makes the point easier): when I raise questions with the “denialists”, I usually get a reasoned, readable reply, though not all of which I agree with or fully understand, with links to other sites in support; on the “warmist” sites I usually get incredibly hostile replies, often calling my heritage into question, my intelligence, and crowing about my basic stupidity. Very rarely do I get a constructive, instructive reply.

    Now, while I like to think that I am still in the middle, my inclination is to go with the people who treat me with respect, as if I had some intelligence, and guide me to the various locations where I can get more information (if not the definitive answer).

    One problem is that the issue has become heavily politicized, and both sides have serious financial rewards to gain; a lot of the fighting seems to highlight this. The gathering in Durban with the necessary flights to and from for all the thousands attending does seems rather hypocritical.

    I shall also post this on a “warmist” site, to see the response there.


  6. Hi RSP. My 2c worth is that the 'deniers' (which the 'warmists' label anyone who questions them in a denigrating comparison to the few who question the WW2 Holocaust) long ago abandoned rational thought and have become a faith-based religion. Faith that their expectation of the planet being destroyed by runaway CO2-caused heating will be proved true if only they can bias their research and simplistic computer models hard enough in that direction.

    Conversely, my own observation is that true scientists are generally humble and polite and only too happy to have others double-check their work in order to arrive at the fundamental facts, whatever they might turn out to be. That's always been the true scientific way of doing things which got us to the level of technology we have today.

    So really we're looking at a new religion full of angry zealots vs a growing group of true scientists, many of whom are outstanding in their field of climate science, who've been looking at the facts and saying, "No, that's not how it really is."

    Only time will tell who's right, but as a technical person my money's on the scientists and not the fuming angry zealots.

  7. Correction: Obviously I got the 'deniers' and 'warmists' mixed up in the first sentence of the first paragraph above. It's the warmists who abandoned rational thought about 25 years ago.

    I need more coffee. :(

  8. Mr. Gates has been successful devising software. However, successes with MicroSoft hardly qualify him to pontificate about the economic realities, or offer realistically based judgments and proposals concerning how we shall eventually develop viable supplements and alternatives to carbon sources for fuel, which thus far, are proven to be the most economical, effective and accessible sources we presently have.

  9. thank you information, very helpful, do not forget to visit also kunju our page to berai information about health
    12 cara menghilangkan bibir menghitam
    cara menyembuhkan vertigo secara total