Perspecive

sdarc

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2010
1,544
Piedmont NC
Boat Info
Boatless
Engines
Boatless
Yea I know I can't spell...Prespective


Maybe our Aussie friends can elaborate on this. I jut find it comical... Don't know if any of it is true.



Subject: Carbon Tax Is Seriously Hairy!




Interesting read






Regardless of your political persuasion, the article below is carbon pollution put into simple perspective so that anyone can get their head around it. The article explains in simple lay-mans terms the incredible significance of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Imagine visiting a 1 kilometre band of atmosphere from which we want to isolate all carbon pollution produced by man.

• The first 770 metres of the band of atmosphere is nothing but Nitrogen • The next 210 metres are made up of pure Oxygen That's 980 metres of the kilometre gone…… 20 metres to go …..
• The next 10 metres are water vapour Bugger! But there’s still 10 metres left to make a difference, however small or inconsequential….
• The next 9 metres are argon Jesus Wept! Only 1 metre left. Talk about a waste of bloody time! Here goes nothing… • Gases make up the first 62 centimetre of that last metre • Only 38 centimetres of a full 1 kilometre band is carbon dioxide – that’s a little more than a foot • 97% of this 38 centimetres is produced by Mother Nature - ‘natural carbon dioxide’ Damn it’s not easy being green when reality has got the odds so stacked in its favour!
• Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left • Just over a centimetre - about half an inch, surely that’s still significant • A half an inch, 12 mm is the total amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere • Of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in 0.18 of a millimetre • Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!
Bob help me! As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard and Bob Brown call Carbon Pollution and see fit to want to wreck our economy over. We need a tax on everything to blow that pesky hair away….!

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says Bob’s found a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – they’ve identified a human hair lying on the roadway.
We'd laugh ourselves silly by such a scenario obviously but that’s exactly what is happening with the Carbon Tax debate.

There are plenty of real pollution and other problems in the world to worry about. Australia 's hair width contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is about as far from being one of the more pressing ones as imaginable. Let’s move on from this sick joke!
The carbon tax is just another elaborate excuse for a massive tax. The effect it will have on households and the economy is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5%. Doing that would be a much simpler way of raising the money the government wants (and increasingly given their spending
needs) but because doing this would be so unpalatable (and would cost the government office), we have to have this elaborate scam that plays on people’s sensitivities (and which stands to make vested interests vast fortunes) thrust upon us to try and bring about a similar outcome for the government.
Pass this on to people in your address book if you wish. If however you have gone so far down the wrong road that you can no longer accept reality, then that’s okay. Just delete it and keep tell yourself that Bob and Julia are both really quite sane. No one will know……..

Ken Madsen
Director

Madsen Partners
Level 1, 1890 Ipswich Road, Rocklea, QLD 4106 P.O. Box 774, Archerfield, QLD 4108

P. 07 3274 8950
M. 0417 100 850
F. 07 3277 0478
E. ken@madsenpartners.com.au
To view our latest 'Heads Up" magazine and properties, click here

www.madsenpartners.com.au
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is one active volcano puts more carbon in the air than the entire human race ever does in a lifetime. You can't shut them down and we (people) are way much cleaner and have little or no impact. Many scientists just know that fact. Global warming is a scam we can't control, Mike.
 
Though quite demonstrative, and likely accurate, there are a couple of problems. The writer shouldn't compare the hair to the Km, but to the foot. Still small? Maybe, but the truth is, it may make the difference. I'm not a proponent of Carbon Taxing or even a believer in man-made global warming. I am a proponent of making valid arguments to make your point. This one is invalid. Chemistry is a funny thing (I have a degree in Chemistry). Everything could be in balance with the 99.9% of natural CO2 in the atmosphere, and then go over the edge with the last .1%.

I am not saying it is so, I'm saying it is possible. His argument should not be on the relative levels of man made CO2 compared to natural, certainly not on the amount of man made CO2 to the total atmosphere, but rather should be based on the effect of the last fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere which is man made. That would make a valid argument. Unfortunately, we don't have those answers, just a lot of speculation.

Some Facts:
Mt St Helen's spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere the day it blew than man has produced in all of history. If nature can absorb that mass in such a short period (which it did), I find it highly unlikely that the man made CO2 can have a detrimental effect on the planet.
As Al Gore stated, there is a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the overall warmth of the planet. Unlike what Al Gore said, CO2 levels FOLLOW global temperature trends directly, but about 800 years afterward. That is a fact! If it gets warmer today (modern day), 800 years from now, the levels of CO2 will increase. Why? CO2 is stored in GREAT levels in the salt water oceans of the world. As the temperature of the planet trends higher over time, the temperature of the oceans trend higher many, many, many years later. As the temperature of the ocean increases, the energy state of the molecules contained within increases. This energy drives many gases off including CO2 - it "boils" off. It's a lot more subtle, but that is what is happening. Al Gore's statement was exactly correct. His conclusions were exactly backwards. But, he got rich off of it and bought a 60' boat - a fuel efficient one, but a 60' boat. And, he burns TONS of coal in his mansions (indirectly). He is part of the liberal elite. The masses should do X because it's the right thing to do, and that allows me to do Y because I want to.

What do I believe? I believe we should minimize our consumption of the world's natural resources. If for nothing else, at least to get the demand down to keep prices lower. My wife and I walk the beach on every visit, once or twice a day. We collect 100% of the trash we find, and then we recycle it. I hate driving for a single purpose. I'll wait for several days until I have a few errands to run before I get in the car and go. If I'm going the right way, I'll make an extra stop and save a trip. This is partially because I'm cheap. It also minimizes exposure and therefore minimizes the risks associated with driving.

If a car is smoking, it should be fixed. If it's running rich, fix it. If the catalytic converters are shot, replace them. Buildings should have greenery on the roofs - both for esthetics and to decrease the effects of the sun. Atlanta is a great example. They take a wooded area, wipe it clean, build buildings with asphalt parking lots, and literally cause the temperature of the area to increase during sunny Summer days. On the other hand, the Ford Plant in the Detroit area has grass and trees on the roof - much less impact. Remember, plants consume CO2 and give off O2.

Be responsible. Have a positive effect on the world around you. Always leave your surroundings better than you found them.

But, DON'T TAX MY BREATHING! http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=12
 
Excellent post John! I'm actually printing most of it out to share.

It doesn't only apply to boats. This is just another example of what that "Technical Contributor" icon represents. Thanks for taking the time to post.
 
Though quite demonstrative, and likely accurate, there are a couple of problems. The writer shouldn't compare the hair to the Km, but to the foot. Still small? Maybe, but the truth is, it may make the difference. I'm not a proponent of Carbon Taxing or even a believer in man-made global warming. I am a proponent of making valid arguments to make your point. This one is invalid. Chemistry is a funny thing (I have a degree in Chemistry). Everything could be in balance with the 99.9% of natural CO2 in the atmosphere, and then go over the edge with the last .1%.

I am not saying it is so, I'm saying it is possible. His argument should not be on the relative levels of man made CO2 compared to natural, certainly not on the amount of man made CO2 to the total atmosphere, but rather should be based on the effect of the last fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere which is man made. That would make a valid argument. Unfortunately, we don't have those answers, just a lot of speculation.

Some Facts:
Mt St Helen's spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere the day it blew than man has produced in all of history. If nature can absorb that mass in such a short period (which it did), I find it highly unlikely that the man made CO2 can have a detrimental effect on the planet.
As Al Gore stated, there is a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and the overall warmth of the planet. Unlike what Al Gore said, CO2 levels FOLLOW global temperature trends directly, but about 800 years afterward. That is a fact! If it gets warmer today (modern day), 800 years from now, the levels of CO2 will increase. Why? CO2 is stored in GREAT levels in the salt water oceans of the world. As the temperature of the planet trends higher over time, the temperature of the oceans trend higher many, many, many years later. As the temperature of the ocean increases, the energy state of the molecules contained within increases. This energy drives many gases off including CO2 - it "boils" off. It's a lot more subtle, but that is what is happening. Al Gore's statement was exactly correct. His conclusions were exactly backwards. But, he got rich off of it and bought a 60' boat - a fuel efficient one, but a 60' boat. And, he burns TONS of coal in his mansions (indirectly). He is part of the liberal elite. The masses should do X because it's the right thing to do, and that allows me to do Y because I want to.

What do I believe? I believe we should minimize our consumption of the world's natural resources. If for nothing else, at least to get the demand down to keep prices lower. My wife and I walk the beach on every visit, once or twice a day. We collect 100% of the trash we find, and then we recycle it. I hate driving for a single purpose. I'll wait for several days until I have a few errands to run before I get in the car and go. If I'm going the right way, I'll make an extra stop and save a trip. This is partially because I'm cheap. It also minimizes exposure and therefore minimizes the risks associated with driving.

If a car is smoking, it should be fixed. If it's running rich, fix it. If the catalytic converters are shot, replace them. Buildings should have greenery on the roofs - both for esthetics and to decrease the effects of the sun. Atlanta is a great example. They take a wooded area, wipe it clean, build buildings with asphalt parking lots, and literally cause the temperature of the area to increase during sunny Summer days. On the other hand, the Ford Plant in the Detroit area has grass and trees on the roof - much less impact. Remember, plants consume CO2 and give off O2.

Be responsible. Have a positive effect on the world around you. Always leave your surroundings better than you found them.

But, DON'T TAX MY BREATHING! http://www.greenroofs.com/projects/pview.php?id=12
Maybe all us CSR guys can think this over the next time we're cruising in our .75mpg fuel hogs. Should we all be rowing instead of driving? :huh:
 
Hey I heard that cows passing gas is the worst offender.

I don't know if they are the worst, but I too have read that they are significant contributors. However, don't blame the cows. It's the consumer demanding broiled cow flesh that have forced an unnatural explosion in the population of said cows, and an unnatural explosion in their farts. (I use the term "unnatural" loosely as I believe that humans are every bit a part of nature as daffodils are.)
 
I gave the rat bait a small slice of peperoni. Note to self: .... DON"T do that ever again !!. :smt021 .
 
Maybe all us CSR guys can think this over the next time we're cruising in our .75mpg fuel hogs. Should we all be rowing instead of driving? :huh:

That would be 1.1MPG fuel sippers to you buddy!
 
The assessments aren't any less valid because a real estate developer presented them, or more valid because the USGS believes it. The bottom line is that we aren't sure exactly what's going on or why. We see an effect (global temperature abnormalities) and are looking for a cause. In the interim there is a lot of jostling to profit from the equation, both on the private and public sector levels. Fear sells. Whether its global warming, or bird flu, or HIV or TSA. The most efficient way to make a population voluntarily agree to assume additional burdens is if they are frightened into it. Hampton is spot on and we learned it in kindergarten-only use what you need, don't be a glutton. Conserve your resources as a matter of common sense (not public policy). Clean up after yourself.
 
Our Snowball didn't do the pooping thing.

But when the rat bait farted it sounded like a bottle rocket going off. :lol:


Yep, Dee is still p*ssed off over that oops. :grin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Forum statistics

Threads
113,182
Messages
1,428,073
Members
61,089
Latest member
KDKING
Back
Top