Emission Trading and climate change

Page 1 of 377 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 51 101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 18819
  1. #1
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default Emission Trading and climate change

    I am dead set againt the introduction of an ETS for several reasons.

    First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures.

    Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit.

    Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim.

    Interested to know your thoughts?

    Cheers Rod
    Last edited by Uncle Bob; 11th Feb 2017 at 05:03 PM. Reason: Updated title due to climate change now being argued
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  2. #2
    Retired Marine Engineer 1K Club Member Ashore's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Newcastle
    Age
    70
    Posts
    1,647

    Default

    Opened a nice bottle of red and will proberly order a late pizza , which may all be for nought if this forum has basically real people cause I cant see a real arguement against what you have said, espically the second point
    Ashore




    The trouble with life is there's no background music.

  3. #3
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Its a great forum, thought this might give it a bit of life
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  4. #4
    1K Club Member Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,059

    Default

    I'm doing some "emissions trading" in my wife's direction at the moment, and she ain't happy about it... oh oh .. she just walked away.

    Seems to be a one way trade.
    I'm no expert, but know enough to be dangerous...
    __________________

  5. #5
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    All you need look at is the extremes of weather over the last 10 years. Sure you could explain each one away but in its entirity its more difficult So do we say wait till it all goes pear shaped, I dont think so. The UK had riots when the automatic loom was introduced. People said it would ruin the economy, it didnt. What man does is find new methods. Man was born with a head on his shoulders, not a head in the sand.

  6. #6
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    rrobor hurricane frequency and intesity does not show any upward trend over the past 100 years only our ability to detect and measure them has changed. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...CLI3034.1&ct=1

    The world has always had severe weather so why is it now blamed on GW.

    An ETS does not contribute to an economy it takes away.

    Your analogy is a bit like the islanders who all fished for their food every day, until someone gave them a net. Now half the islanders were unemployed, but they all still ate fish. Guess what the unemployed were able to trade other services to the fishermen for fish in return. All employed again!! There are major shifts in economies that are helpful to the overall good of the people and then there is an ETS.

    Actually I would be very interested if someone could point to anything at all that is conclusive proof of AGW dispite the billions dollars of spent trying.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  7. #7
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Some context...

    Hi Rod,

    By all accounts your plastering is flawless, as is your logic. I concur with your sentiments, and look forward to the emotional outbursts and prophesies of the end of the world. But first, allow me to provide some context. Best scientific estimates indicate the planet (Earth) is about 4.5 billion years old (p.s. there was no moon or water then, these arrived a few billion years later).

    I know it hurts, but please keep reading. Us humans arrived about 2 million years ago. Then after lots of banging rocks together, we invented something called a thermometer about 150 years ago. We now have about 100 years of very inaccurate surface temperature data, and a few decades of fairly accurate satellite data (on a planet that's been here 4.5 billion years)

    We have made very inaccurate guesses as far back as we can about the climate before we got here. We call this proxy data in the scientific community (rhymes with poxy)
    Here it is:

    Geological Era---------Million Years Ago----------Carbon Dioxide ppm-----------Av Global Temperature 0C

    Cambrian------------550-------------------------------------6,000----------------------23
    Ordovician-----------470-------------------------------------4,200----------------------23 – 12
    Silurian---------------430--------------------------------------3,500---------------------17 - 23
    Devonian-------------380--------------------------------------2,100---------------------23 – 20
    Carboniferous-------320------------------------------------1,000 - 200--------------20 – 12
    Permian---------------270------------------------------------200 – 1,900--------------12 - 23
    Triassic----------------230------------------------------------1,500-----------------------23 – 22
    Jurassic----------------170------------------------------------2,000----------------------22 – 16
    Cretaceous------------110------------------------------------1,500----------------------16 – 22
    Tertiary------------------40---------------------------------------500------------------------22 – 12
    Present Time-----------0---------------------------------------385-------------------------14 - 16

    The planet (Earth) has naturally cycled between 200 and 6000 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). The average planetary temperature has naturally ranged between 12 and 23 degrees celsius over the last 550 million years (no SUV's or power plants). We, the humans, now intend to maintain carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million and average global temperatures at 16 degrees celsius, FOREVER. Just like nature intended? Kevin Rudd thinks getting governments to agree will be challenging. I think getting the planet Earth to agree will be "challenging".

    As a footnote, Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is a natural Molecule. Your lungs are currently 70% filled by Carbon Dioxide (that's one Carbon atom attached to two Oxygen atoms). So is your bloodstream (oh no, scary pollution). You are a carbon based life form. When you breathe out the carbon dioxide, plants breathe it in. Then they breathe out oxygen, you breathe this in. Complicated stuff, huh.


    Just to help you sleep at night, you are stuck on a ball of molten lava that has cooled on the outside due to being stuck in the sub-zero vacuum of space. This ball is hurtling through space at over 100,000 kilometres per hour and no one is driving. Luckily, we are stuck in the gravitational field of a giant nuclear explosion that is slowly expanding, which should disappear in about 1.5 billion years. Gee wiz people, that 2 - 3 degree temperature rise is pretty scary

    Just remember, the Dinosaurs didn't die out because they farted too much, they died because they were so busy fighting amongst themselves, nobody was watching where they were going, and they crashed into a big rock.
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 8th Oct 2009 at 02:24 AM. Reason: Formatting

  8. #8
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    I agree the planet will survive and recover. Whether man will be on it to see, that is another thing. There is a sea current that flows from, not that far off Perth Scotland, to about the same off Perth Western Australia. That relies on the sea having a certain percentage of salinity. As the Ice caps are receeding salinity is decreasing and that current is reducing. If that current stops the earth will loose its air conditioner. Southern Australia now is drying up, where I am there has been a drought for 20 years, When I came here we had real rain storms, I now cant remember when the last one was. But given all that and let us assume that most scientists may be wrong, is it wise to wait and see, or is it wise to clean up our act now and not take the chance. Emission trading I agree is a joke, its the dirty spiv getting some poor begger to empty his chamber pot.

  9. #9
    Owner Builder
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Altona Vic
    Age
    45
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Rod, I agree with you 1000%. I have been like an `evangelist' on this issue for about a year now, I always argue with people about it, it makes me so mad the way the liberal media (especially The Age and the ABC) completely silence the global warming critics. It is the great myth of our age, and one day people will look back at it and laugh at how stupid we all were for believing it.

    One great resource is Andrew Bolt's blog (on the Herald Sun website), he frequently posts fantastic links to articles from global warming sceptics.

    I could go on for pages about the various arguments, but I'm at work at the moment so I can't write for long! But I just wanted to express my agreement.

  10. #10
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    Andrew Bolt is a self confessed right wing extremist. He was all the way with George W on weapons of mass destruction because "they had proof". That was a lie. So giving Bolt as anything other than an extremist right wing view, and a guy with the ability to research and manipulate for his purposes, does not add credability to any arguement.

  11. #11
    Owner Builder
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Altona Vic
    Age
    45
    Posts
    309

    Default

    One extra point - I wish the Liberal party would stand up and offer a position of direct opposition to the Government on this. I wish the Liberal party was the party whose policy was `there is no global warming, we completely oppose the Kyoto protocol, we completely oppose the CPRS and the ETS.' I think they would probably surprise themselves and win an election, particularly if they devoted every single moment in the media spotlight to exposing the lies and assumptions and prejudice associated with this issue.

    The Labor party won the unwinnable election in the 90s by fear-mongering on one issue alone, the GST. I think the Liberals (if they had any balls and intelligence) would be equally successful if they targeted this one area ruthlessly, it is the biggest issue in decades.

    I am impressed with the National party and their stand on this, particularly Barnaby Joyce, he's very quick witted and erudite.

    Apart from the ridiculous pretenses of the CPRS (carbon pollution reduction scheme), another thing that really bugs me about the ETS (emissions trading scheme) is that is another poorly disguised exercise in socialism. It is re-distribution of wealth on a massive scale, stealing from the huge industries that are at the very core of our economy, and putting it all in the expanding coffers of the government who will squander it unjustly on all sorts of meaningless undeserving causes, and it will also line the pockets of the financial sector who will make a fortune from brokering the new carbon economy.

  12. #12
    Luv a Duk chipps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Murwillumbah NSW
    Age
    59
    Posts
    271

    Default

    I'm pretty vague as to what Emmission trading is all about.

    Just had a gander at the Kyoto Protocol Emissions Trading & am still confused.

    Are they saying some countries can trade this commodity as an offset, simply because they are in excess of the limits when compared to smaller economies? Kinda like a guilt payement to keep everyone happy?

  13. #13
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    Elections are never won by extremists. If the Liberals want to stand a chance they have to push Labor left. Rudd is right wing Labor and as long as the liberals bicker and fight out in the ultra right, Rudd will stay in power. Howard kept going right until he destroyed the liberals chances, now they need someone to come left, and I dont see anyone in that rabble yet. As to Global warming, the majority view is, it is a concern. To gain power, the Liberals must address that. They had a poll for liberal leader with the 3 leading liberals and Phar Lap, Phar Lap got 72%.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gymea, NSW
    Posts
    332

    Default

    Global Warming?

    You have to take it seriously, just imagine the strife we would be in now if all that time and money had not been so judiciously expended tackling the Y2K bug.....

  15. #15
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Zac I think you wrote my posts perfectly for me LOL.

    My god I thought I was reading myself!

    By the way rrobor can you please explain to me how much ice Antartica has lost in the past 30 years? Or the Greenland ice sheets?

    Maybe you could research how the prevailing winds of the past 10 years have affected the Artic ice, rather than temperature. But it is nice and reassuring that the artic ice has now recovered.

    Mind you the 30 years of records don't really tell us much, when you consider subs surfaced at the north pole in the 40's and sailing ships sailed the north west passage in the past sort of does indicate a bit that ice melt in the Artic is not really a new thing.

    It is a good thing to research these things rather that listen to a bias media.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  16. #16
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Nice post Dr Freud.

    Zac

    I also think the Libs would get a shock at how much support they would get if they were honest and came out swinging against AGW.

    Most people hold the view AGW is real because the media told them so. Most open minded people change there view when presented with the facts not the media hyped fiction. The truth will come out but only when people freeze there butts off enough if there is a shift is to a cooler climate as it appears may happen.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  17. #17
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    Andrew Bolt is a self confessed right wing extremist. He was all the way with George W on weapons of mass destruction because "they had proof". That was a lie. So giving Bolt as anything other than an extremist right wing view, and a guy with the ability to research and manipulate for his purposes, does not add credability to any arguement.
    Andrew Bolt says it how it is and how he sees it. Not always 100% right but you know he is not holding back. We need more Andrew Bolts in the media. The Media no longer reseach issues they just print the media releases from the enviro' groups etc without giving any though to the facts.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  18. #18
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chipps View Post
    I'm pretty vague as to what Emmission trading is all about.

    Just had a gander at the Kyoto Protocol Emissions Trading & am still confused.

    Are they saying some countries can trade this commodity as an offset, simply because they are in excess of the limits when compared to smaller economies? Kinda like a guilt payement to keep everyone happy?
    Here is a rough laymans explanation.

    They are going to put a price on carbon emission of x$ per tonne. They will issue all business with a permit to emit X tonnes of emissions. If they emit more than the permits allow them to they then need to purchase permits from someone who does not use all their permits. Or they can purchase carbon credits from other counties that have spare credits or are creating credits by planting trees etc!

    Each year the amount of credits allocated to a business is reduced requireing them to purchase more carbon credits.

    The interesting point is who is going to make the money? Every purchase of a carbon credit will go through an exchange where fees will be attached. Billions to be made here don't you think. Who has investments in carbon exchanges you may ask? AL GORE that who.

    Next question who creates the carbon credit and then more importantly who verifies it is an actual credit? Open for coruption do you think? Imagine the Mafia getting into this one?

    What is going to happen when our power companies have to buy huge amounts of carbon credits OVER SEAS. Do you think they will put their prices up? What about the hydro power in Tassie, reckon they might put their prices up too, just because they can? Where is all the money going to go? Yep you are right OVERSEAS.

    Now how about mining, aluminum and manufacturing? They will have to purchase huge amounts of carbon credits to operate. So India has no ETS but they have cheap labour... nice. Do you think maybe one or two of these companies might just pack up go to India or some place else? Nah they wouldn't would they?

    Ever thought what might happen to our emissions when our population goes from 22 mil to 35mil in the next 20 years? Yet we have an ever reducing cap don't we?
    Come on! it just cant be done it is undoable, the maths just do not add up.

    But ok, just in case we think all that pain is worth it. We are going to save the planet right? Ok, if we are gonna accept this maybe we should know how much this pain is going to exactly reduce temperatures by. Why not ask the government? Do they know? Ok so they don't have a clue. Lets ask the scientists surley they can tell us! You have got to be shitting me, they don't know either!!!!

    Ok but its still worth it. Isn't it?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  19. #19
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    Rod I couldnt convince you with all the data I could show as to say Antartic ice melt, The New Zealand glacier melt etc. Nor could you convince me with stats like Andrew Bolt can dig up. My point is very simply this. The majority of Australians are on my side and Australia will cut carbon, the majority demand that. What you or I believe in the end matters little, Rudd won an election with a green bias. The liberals will be in the wilderness till they recognise that. Turnbull does but he is now waiting for the final knife to finish him off. Every developed country in the world is cutting greenhouse gasses. I think that speaks volumes about who we should believe.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Age
    60
    Posts
    173

    Default

    [quote=rrobor;774001] As to Global warming, the majority view is, it is a concern./quote]

    Pardon me but this is not correct. Perhaps the most advertised view is, or the noisiest, or the most radical (read newsworthy). In any case, the majority view is not always right - this is science, not democracy. Also note how we talk now about global warming, rather than the man-made climate change that used to be tossed around. Personally I think carbon emissions are just so small a part of the bigger picture its not worth messing with - but it is emotive and sells news just like the threat nuclear war used to be.

    Think about it. Greenhouse gases are about 2% of the atmosphere. Of those greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is about 3.6%. Of all the carbon dioxide produced we humans account for around 3.5%. And Australia is responsible for about 1.4% of human produced carbon dioxide. That comes to about 0.000035%. Which means we can do bugger all about 99.999965% of CO2 emissions.

    And we want to stuff around with our business models?

    Time for another beer.
    Adam

  21. #21
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Rob, didn't you do this to death and back on the woodwork forums?

    Whoever shouts the loudest and makes the most posts isn't necessarily right.

    rrobor, there are New Zealand Glaciers among the few glaciers worldwide that are actually growing at the moment. Of course, they grow pretty slowly, but growing they are.

    Fox Glacier Look in Geography - it's growing about a metre a week.

    Frans Joseph Glacier likewise.

    The argument that the Glaciers generally are melting because of global warming may be correct, especially if you define the start of global warming as 1850's, which is when the Glaciers started to melt. Wikipedia reference As far as basing a current AGW argument on this, good luck!

    woodbe.

  22. #22
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    First even if Global Warming was true we could never reduce emissions to a degree that would have any effect on global temperatures. Ignoring the former for the moment and assuming that by 'we' you are refering to Australia then yes.....reducing Oz's GHG emissions will have little actual impact on global temperatures (but then neither will anyone else's....but not for the reason you might think**)

    Second an ETS will cripple the Australian economy for no net benefit. Can't help thinking you might be right here too.....not because it is a wrong idea....it's just the wrong solution for the problem at hand. It might be better simply provide a market incentive for low emission products by adopting a tariff system based on a product's GHG contribution - the higher the GHG the higher the tariff but more importantly the lower the GHG then the lower the tariff - perhaps even a negative tariff. Sure you can call it a tax if you want but the evidence suggests that they work (eg solar HWS rebates, cigarettes, luxury motor cars etc) and are not unpopular. Except they are incontravention with international trade treaties....unlike ETS's (becuase it is a trading scheme like the sharemarket and REC's)

    Third I believe that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming and that there need to be irrefutable evidence both scientific and imperical to proove CO2 is warming the planet and that any warming would be as damaging as they claim. This is where we seriously part ways - my belief is counter to yours.

    ** back to the topic from earlier. Emmission reductions from this point on will not have any positive effect (ie reduce) on air temperature for probably more than a century at the very least. This is simply because it takes ages to get a leviathin like system such as our atmosphere to actually do anything. Just as it has taken a century to even get the atmosphere to behave the way it is behaving it'll take even longer for it to do anything different - you can boil a jug in a couple of minutes but it takes hours for it to cool down again. Same goes for our atmosphere - except it ain't so simple as ajug of water.

    The point? Easy. What happens if we keep boiling the jug?

    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  23. #23
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    I will see your data and raise you mine. Manipulation of natural occuring events to pesent as evidence of AGW is occuring everyday and is being bought by the Media, the public believes it because they do not hear the alternative views. Slowly the alternative view are being heard, thanks to the internet.

    People naturally want to do the right thing, they want to be seen to do the right thing, it makes them feel good. I don't blame them I don't denegrate them simply because they don't know. But I do object to those who are choose not to look at the science agaist AGW when they know it exists. then if they do, refuse to acknowlege that there is a debate that may proove their feel good cause wrong.

    The majority may change their minds when it hurts them economically. They will also call for heads to roll when they realize the pain was all in vain. They will wonder where the opposition to AGW was all this time. They will wonder how the scientist got it so wrong. Every developed country is too scared to do anything different because of the populist view that AGW is real.

    I agree that the most popular view is that AGW is real and if we don't do something about it we will fry. The proplem is that there is NO scientific basis that prooves this to be fact. There is NO emperical evidence that supports this position. All there is is fear and ignorance, sold well by the media and scientist who rely on this fear to get their grants.

    There is a lot of natural occuring events that can be used to fuel this fear. But where are the facts? Where is the proof? It is just not there.

    Ever seen a flock of sheep being rounded up? People act the same way once one moves in a direction, a few others follow the rest bolt and nothing will change their course. AGW and humans are exactly like this.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  24. #24
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Rob, didn't you do this to death and back on the woodwork forums?
    Yes.

    Fun wasn't it.

    It is a serious matter and should be brought up time and time again.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Whoever shouts the loudest and makes the most posts isn't necessarily right.
    I agree. But I started the thread and will reply to critics where I can, others can judge if what i write ir right or wrong. If that means 100's of posts so be it. I am not a hit and run poster.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  25. #25
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok View Post
    Ever seen a flock of sheep being rounded up? People act the same way once one moves in a direction, a few others follow the rest bolt and nothing will change their course. AGW and humans are exactly like this.
    Something tells me that it one was to point a firearm at you....you'd spend the rest of your life asking one to prove it was loaded. It might be!

    At the moment...we have a metaphorical gun in this climate change thingy. You and yours are spending all your time pointing out that we don't know the brand, model number and calibre. Which is absolutely true. But who gives a toss when the damn thing is actually loaded! It's a f...ing gun!!!!
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  26. #26
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ** back to the topic from earlier. Emmission reductions from this point on will not have any positive effect (ie reduce) on air temperature for probably more than a century at the very least. This is simply because it takes ages to get a leviathin like system such as our atmosphere to actually do anything. Just as it has taken a century to even get the atmosphere to behave the way it is behaving it'll take even longer for it to do anything different - you can boil a jug in a couple of minutes but it takes hours for it to cool down again. Same goes for our atmosphere - except it ain't so simple as ajug of water.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    The point? Easy. What happens if we keep boiling the jug?
    And the evidence for this is? If this was true the evidece that an increace of X amount co2 will increace the temperature by x amount of degrees is?

    By the way what is earths perfect temperature? How do we keep it at that perfect temperature? What natural forces will effect the perfect temperature? How do we combat the natural forces to maintain our perfect temperature? Can we?

    The world temperatures have been a lot higher than those of today and this was a time of great prosperity for humans. They have also been a lot lower where humans suffered greatly.

    Why have temperatures flatened out and dropped over the past 10 years when carbon kept increacing? Why didn't the computer models predict this drop?

    BTW earth is nothing like a jug of water. There are many feedbacks in our atmosphere (which to this day are poorly understood), where there are none when boiling a jug of water. Very bad analogy.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  27. #27
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    At the moment...we have a metaphorical gun in this climate change thingy. You and yours are spending all your time pointing out that we don't know the brand, model number and calibre. Which is absolutely true. But who gives a toss when the damn thing is actually loaded! It's a f...ing gun!!!!
    Yes but some people who know a little bit about guns can see at a glance that its only a toy
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  28. #28
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    If woodbe is referring to me doing it to death on the wood forum the answer is no, First time I have seen this. As to doing it to death Ive said all there is for me to say. People get into their own corners and can prove what suits them so the post is now pointless. My arguement was always with Silent but deadly, thats the issue in a nutshell.

  29. #29
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    If woodbe is referring to me doing it to death on the wood forum the answer is no, First time I have seen this. As to doing it to death Ive said all there is for me to say. People get into their own corners and can prove what suits them so the post is now pointless. My arguement was always with Silent but deadly, thats the issue in a nutshell.
    Nah mate, he was refering to me

    The post is far from pointless to many, pointless for you I agree, as you have indicated your position is fixed and no amount of evidence to refute it will change your view. That is until the rest of the world changes their's first. I am not being insulting to you here rrobor. You are fully entitled to have this opinion.

    What is interesting is that many people share your view, no doubt about it. It is also a fact that there are a huge amount of people that don't have a "rusted on view", they simply believe what they are fed by the media. Another type view is that, "everyone else believes it so it must be true" then they think nothing more of it, until it hurts them.

    Of course it can also be said that I have a rusted on view as well, I accept that. However if the facts change and someone can show me scientific proof that AGW is FACT not just a theory I will change my view. I mean 1+1= 2 type of stuff. What will you do?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  30. #30
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    If woodbe is referring to me doing it to death on the wood forum
    No rrobor, that was for Rod, the anti-GW evangelist.

    For you, I was pointing out about the Glacier melt preceding the current Global Warming news by about a century. It's a big problem for sure, especially in areas of the world that rely on Glaciers for water and refrigeration.

    woodbe.

  31. #31
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    Rod I could reverse your post and use the exact answer you gave me. You wouldnt believe in global warming even if you were sitting in a pot on the simmer so why get up tight. If you believe the majority are idiots swayed by the media be happy with your beliefs. Its not my belief and its a minority belief. Thankfully we live in a democracy.

  32. #32
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Here is a typical beat up news story to scare the pants out of us.

    The surprising real story about this year’s Northeast passage transit: The media botched it Watts Up With That?

    Pathetic really.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  33. #33
    1K Club Member Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,059

    Default

    Two arguements here. Global Warming and ETS. From my superficial knowledge of ETS it would seem that this may end up as another big problem we have to address rather than a solution. However that obviously has no relation to the GW arguements themselves.

    Regarding GW, obviously the models used to predict atmospheric pnenomena and its affect on the earth are not fully understood. However, I remember seeing global warming documentaries on TV back in the 80's predicting the type of stuff that is happening now. We cannot say with 100% certainty that it is a man-made effect, but certainly strong arguements can be made correlating our activity with current weather patterns. Just like any complicated topic, this evidence can be refuted, and then counter refuted, etc.

    However we can't dismiss the fact that the large majority of scientists working in this field believe in man-made global warming. I have read books on this topic that certainly present strong arguments. (But having a memory like a sieve, remember 1% of them). I have also jumped on the internet and read many convincing counter-arguements. In the end my conclusion is that you can selectively pick facts to back-up both arguements. However, that doesn't mean that we should ignore the issue.

    My basic intuition tells me that certainly the shear mass of emissions that we produce must have some kind of affect after several decades. Even if the effect is quite small, there are thousands of examples of how a small shift can cause a chain reaction of events that can turn into a huge problem. Huge problem for planet earth? Maybe not. Huge problem for humans? Certainly.

    There are too many consumers on this planet, fullstop. Apart from CO2, analyze your day and look at how many things you use and discard in a heartbeat. E.g The fuel you use in your 1.5 ton car at 18% efficiency to move your 80kg body from A to B. The containers you throw away, gas you use, electricity you waste, right down to the toilet paper you flush down the toilet. Then look at industry that does this kind of thing on a massive scale.

    It took millions and millions of years for bio-matter to be buried and turned to fossil fuel deposits. Humans have managed to dig up and burn vast quantities of these over a very short time frame. Logically one can see that this type of activity surely just *could* make a difference to the currently finely balanced system, especially considering the fact that our atmosphere is actually extremely thin on relative scales.

    Anyway.. I'm ranting... I'll end it here.
    I'm no expert, but know enough to be dangerous...
    __________________

  34. #34
    1K Club Member Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok View Post
    Here is a typical beat up news story to scare the pants out of us.

    The surprising real story about this year’s Northeast passage transit: The media botched it Watts Up With That?

    Pathetic really.
    Rod, you can't use a bad example of journalism to refute GW arguments. However, I do agree that the media is the enemy when it comes to scare-mongering and sensationalism. Annoys the crap out of me. It is a business after all. Unfortunately so is GW. It has become business, so expect "the common people" to get corrupt information. Just like cigarette companies in early days corrupting evidence against the ill effects of smoking.
    I'm no expert, but know enough to be dangerous...
    __________________

  35. #35
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    Rod I could reverse your post and use the exact answer you gave me. You wouldnt believe in global warming even if you were sitting in a pot on the simmer so why get up tight. If you believe the majority are idiots swayed by the media be happy with your beliefs. Its not my belief and its a minority belief. Thankfully we live in a democracy.
    Please rrobor, read my post again.

    I am far from up tight. I said I WOULD change my views if there was evidence of AGW that was irrefutable. Will you?

    I do not have any problem at all with your views, I don't agree with them for sure. In the long run it is esential that there are people that have similar convictions as yourself. How else can we convince the fence sitters that AGW is a belief rather than scientific fact..
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  36. #36
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gooner View Post
    Rod, you can't use a bad example of journalism to refute GW arguments. However, I do agree that the media is the enemy when it comes to scare-mongering and sensationalism. Annoys the crap out of me. It is a business after all. Unfortunately so is GW. It has become business, so expect "the common people" to get corrupt information. Just like cigarette companies in early days corrupting evidence against the ill effects of smoking.
    I agree, the intention is to point out just how the Media go about corupting minds with "bad journalism".
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  37. #37
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Gooner lets not confuse pollution with human caused gloabl warming. No one wants pollution and all reasonable efforts should be made to reduce pollution.

    Sustainability is another issue not to be confused with AGW. There is no doubt we need to move toward a more sustainable lifstyle. Fossil fuels must be replace eventually.

    Population is another issue not to be confussed with man made global warming. Sure its an issue that needs addressing interestingly extra Co2 will help produce better crops. Who is going to volanteer to go first?

    The issue here is Co2 which is not pollution it is essential to life on earth and the cost to reduce CO2 emisisons which are claimed to increace the average temperature of the earth. If this is true then the other issues will have an impact on this. If the theory of Co2 is wrong then these other issues can be managed without destroying the economy to do so.

    In any event we should be consistently working on solutions to the REAL environmental problems facing us like pollution, over population, water and sustainability. Wasting trillions of dollars trying to solve a problem that may or may not exist is going to severely reduce our ability to address these real problems.

    Ok off to have a game of golf.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  38. #38
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok View Post
    The issue here is Co2 which is not pollution it is essential to life on earth...
    Rod,

    You seem to be demanding a very high standard of proof from others with a contrary view.

    I would doubt that most readers here could explain fully and scientifically the reasons why:
    (a) smoking causes cancer;
    (b) excessive sun expose causes skin cancer;
    (c) being overweight is bad for one's health;
    However, most will accept these propositions as true to a greater or lesser extent. Whether they choose to modify their own lifestyle is another matter. And I'm sure we can all point out the exception of an long lived individual who defied the odds.

    The science of GW is quite complex too but we don't all need to fully understand it to form an opinion. We will generally accept the views and opinions of those who work in the field - in this case the scientists.

    While there will be those who'll refute the prevalent views (I'm sure there'll be some who'll argue the moon landing didn't take place), in general I think global warming is generally accepted as happening.

    Oh, and by the way, CO2 can be be a poison in the right concentrations.

    It's all about balance. GW science shows that the CO2 balance has shifted. The ETS is merely a mechanism to apportion a cost to the carbon in an attempt to provide a financial incentive to restore the balance.

  39. #39
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Headpin,

    I think you're onto something.

    These 'discussions' are always interesting. I'm always amused at how people think that if they write more words then their argument somehow carries more weight.

    woodbe.

  40. #40
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    These arguements are never won or lost. Rod believes to the root of his very being in his stance as I do in mine I dont believe in religion and have a very religious friend. He tries so hard to save my soul and show me the light. I see it as his weakness and feel sorry that he needs such a crutch. Does it really matter who is correct. To quote from Chief Sitting Bull "If you dont know what your actions will have on your children's children then do not do it." I may be wrong but by the time we know that for sure its too late. I dont have the right to burden others because I wanted the good life and I suggest neither does Rod.

  41. #41
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Chrisp I don't expect anyone here to explain to me why AGW is real, I just expect that theyshould be able to point me to someone who can. The trouble is they don't exist. It is a theory and it is up to scientists to back the theory with proof not for them to say here is the theory now unless you can proove it is wrong it is correct, The fact is the planet has warmed for sure and Co2 has increased no one argues that. But this does not proove co2 caused the warming, far from it.

    Co2 does not become a danger until it reaches 8,000 ppm as in the air quality of a submarine the world is a long way off that.

    Science is not about consensus leave that to the pollies. Science is based of verifiable facts of which the AGW theory in not one of them. That is unless you can point me to a science paper that says otherwise. Only time will proove the theory wrong, which is unfortunate unfortunate as a lot of economic damage will be done in the mean time.

    The AGW crowd have sold their story well and scared the pants of Mr and Mrs Joe average and in particular school children.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  42. #42
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Headpin,

    I think you're onto something.

    These 'discussions' are always interesting. I'm always amused at how people think that if they write more words then their argument somehow carries more weight.

    woodbe.
    Woodbe you would do much better attacking the words rather than the person typing them. Seems to be a common theme.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  43. #43
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    These arguements are never won or lost. Rod believes to the root of his very being in his stance as I do in mine I dont believe in religion and have a very religious friend. He tries so hard to save my soul and show me the light. I see it as his weakness and feel sorry that he needs such a crutch. Does it really matter who is correct. To quote from Chief Sitting Bull "If you dont know what your actions will have on your children's children then do not do it." I may be wrong but by the time we know that for sure its too late. I dont have the right to burden others because I wanted the good life and I suggest neither does Rod.

    rrobor, like I have said show me the proof then I will change my views. The proof just does not exist. AGW is simply a belief no different to a religion. Based on some mitigating circumstancial evidence.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  44. #44
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    At the very least Rod my belief in that there is an issue and we need to mend our ways, will do no harm. Your belief that we can pour out CO2 to our hearts content may just do harm. At the very minimum be man enough to acknowledge that as a fact.

  45. #45
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    At the very least Rod my belief in that there is an issue and we need to mend our ways, will do no harm. Your belief that we can pour out CO2 to our hearts content may just do harm. At the very minimum be man enough to acknowledge that as a fact.
    There is harm rrobor, the economic and political fall out will be felt for years. The billions of $ spent on trying to proove AGW is happening would be much better off spent on the real problems facing us. That in itself is a great harm.

    The harm proposed by AGW is theretical on the premis that AGW is fact.

    What ways do you propose we mend? How far to we go and what REAL difference will it make? What have you done to mend your ways?

    I can ackowledge that Co2 emissions will increase and that they will continue to do so EST or not. I can't acknowlege that this will be harmful to mankind. But the plants will love it.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  46. #46
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    And Headpin I would say exactly the same abour you. And no Im not an Athiest. Thats another religion that people love to ram at others. I said I had no religion. Do I believe in God, yes I believe God exists in the mind of the believer and Im happy with that thought. My first post on this Rod I said they smashed looms during the industrial revolution in UK it was all doom and gloom. From that action the UK built an empire and at one time ruled 1/3 of the earth. Have faith in man as an inventor, shivering in a corner thinking this will destroy us is negative. Look at the innovations there are to find in the new, bugger the old ways.

  47. #47
    Owner Builder
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Altona Vic
    Age
    45
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Rrobor, it seems in almost every post you have made on this topic you revert to attacking the individual you disagree with, rather than addressing their arguments. This is commonly called an `ad hominem' argument - an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of a person advocating the premise.

    An example of this is:
    Person 1 makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about Person 1
    Therefore claim X is false
    This is a tiresome approach, and the worst example is in the quote below:
    Quote Originally Posted by rrobor View Post
    I dont believe in religion and have a very religious friend. He tries so hard to save my soul and show me the light. I see it as his weakness and feel sorry that he needs such a crutch.
    Do you realise how incredibly offensive and redundant that comment is? It is such a commonly thrown-about statement, constantly recycled and mockingly agreed to by circles of people all mutually content in their own religious indifference. In no way is it defensible or even demonstrable. What is his crutch for? Perhaps you'd like to give examples of his many failings for which his religion is unquestionably providing the crutch? Does he demonstrate a remarkable need for a crutch, a need greater than most people? Do you have no faults, otherwise you would look for a crutch too? Or are you smugly content to admit that you `limp' around, too proud to use a crutch?

    Even if your argument was correct and it was proven that all religious people used their religion as a crutch, how does that disprove the essential precepts of their religion? A religion must be logically and historically true or false regardless of the needs or behaviours of its' adherents.

    Look around you, there is a church on just about every corner; although we are now a secular country, even just 40 years ago we were a deeply religious country. Australia was built on the foundations of western Christianity, with the values, freedoms, and forms of government it engendered. Did generation after generation of strong Australian families all require a crutch?

  48. #48
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    I simply gave you my feelings on the subject. I didnt say religion was wrong and I was correct. I stated what i feel. That you feel differently is your choice and I am not offended by that. So please give me what I give you, the right to freedom of thought, I chose my friend because of his strong belief, he passionatly believes he is correct and perhaps he is, but that is not me, I believe its a form of escapism. But we respect each others views and know neither will change, and that was the point.

  49. #49
    rrobor
    Guest

    Default

    Hey Headpin you were doing ok on the beer mate. I think the bottle of red with the dinner did you no good at all.

  50. #50
    Owner Builder
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Altona Vic
    Age
    45
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Here is a quote from Barnaby Joyce:

    The National Party at a Federal level has been completely consistent on the ETS. It is the Employment Termination Scheme. It is the Extra Tax System and when that metaphor was working and cutting through the Labor Party got cunning and thought they would change it to the CPRS. Well the CP stands for cunning plan to get yourself to a double dissolution and RS stands for what the economy will look like if they ever get there.

    This is just another tax. It is a tax that is going to come to you from the power points. Every electrical appliance in your house will have a tax on it. The ironing will be taxed, the vacuuming will be taxed, watching footy on a Sunday will be taxed, turning the lights on will be taxed. Who will they be taxing? Working families. Then you'll want to go shopping and what will happen? All your food will be taxed. If you are sick of it and want go on a plane and go away for the weekend, it's on aviation fuel, you'll be taxed. Everything in this new world under Kevin Rudd is taxed. Kevin in the shopping trolley, Kevin at the ironing board, Kevin in the kitchen, Kevin on the plane - too much Kevin makes me feel very sick. And what is he going to do this for? Because Kevin is going to change the climate. It is amazing, he is going to make that out there different. He told us so, it must be true. The reality is the ETS is not going to change the climate one iota. Not one thing will change in the climate because of this new tax. Metaphorically speaking, the difference Australia will make is the equivalent of a the breadth of a hair on the length of about a one kilometre bridge. It is so infinitesimally small. So ridiculous, so pointless, yet we are putting our economy out to dry.

Page 1 of 377 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 51 101 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •