Emission Trading and climate change

Page 104 of 377 FirstFirst ... 4 54 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 154 204 ... LastLast
Results 5,151 to 5,200 of 18819
  1. #5151
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Uh oh!

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Yes. Certainly in the first few years.

    But down the track at bit.....the economists and day traders all on the hunt for new ways to make money will demand that this new financial instrument (the Australian Carbon Price) is floated on the international market in order to gain a greater level of access to the international trade in carbon 'credits' (which will also come simply because the Almighty God Of Endless Economic Growth must be kowtowed to).

    The carbon economy is a new type of currency.....it'll join national currencies, gold, oil and other commodities on international money train. And like most mineral commodities...carbon 'credits' (if the process works correctly) should become increasingly scarce as carbon emissions from fossil fuels fall. Unlike most commodities....this process of increasing scarcity should happen in an orderly, stable & forseeable fashion and markets like stability.

    The increasing scarcity will happen until a point where the 80:20 rule applies and there is nothing economic to be gained from mitigating the last 20% of fossil fuel carbon emissions because the cost of doing so will account for 80% of the total budget to date.

    This point will prove to be an interesting place.....by this time, fossil fuel carbon emmisions should be so expensive that they are spent on the really important things that only fossil fuels can provide....which is not fuel (or even heat) but hydrocarbons for industry.

    But since I expect to have naturally expired (one way or the other) by then......so it won't cost me much either.
    The Global Financial Crisis was based on real property assets and look how that ended. Previously we have had many similar "market" corrections based on tangible assets and businesses, such as the dot.com debacle.

    But you think a speculative derivatives market based on underlying artificial arbitrary constructs regulated by a minority of nation states is foolproof?

    Words fail me!

    Please read "The Intelligent Investor" by Benjamin Graham. He's the man who trained Warren Buffet, and Buffet still says he continually lives in awe of Graham's financial insights.

    After you read it, I'd be interested in your opinion on what Graham would say about your "utopian vision".

  2. #5152
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You're too kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    The above is a fine example of your intelligence.
    Thanks mate. Maybe one day you'll actually show a fine example of yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    My dog knows the answer.
    Well, put it on the computer then. Smart Dog Vs Infinite Monkey, very Chinese New Year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Do me a favour - before you make yourself look so incredibly, well silly (and that's being generous), don't pretend that your opinion is the only one that counts.
    We've discussed opinions in depth already, you would do well to read the thread to avoid going over all this again. My opinion on opinions is well documented, negating the need for you to interpret it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    There are some good ABC kids publications on the process of a Bill through Parliament if you would like to begin there.
    Things are a bit tight with this Great Big New Tax coming in. Could I please just borrow your copy?

    Who said armageddon couldn't be fun? Armageddon all the laughs I can before we go.

  3. #5153
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Beliefs are strange things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post

    I can't believe you wrote that.
    Would you believe the stuff you just breathed out is vile pollution that is going to turn the planet into a fireball?

    Cos if you believe this, I figured you'd believe anything.

  4. #5154
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default This is tiresome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage Thesis is a pissa.

    He acknowledges that a Carbon Tax and market based mechanisms are the way to go! Ha??
    Mate, I still have serious doubts. Greg Hunt has explained this concept in detail on many occasions. He has consistently explained that the caveat to this is the effective global market. Not just some European countries, global. Even if you had zero familiarity with "political science", 30 seconds on Google will have provided numerous examples:

    LEIGH SALES: You won an award for your university thesis 20 years ago on precisely this topic: on the merits of regulation versus emissions trading, versus carbon taxes to deal with climate change. What did you conclude was the best approach?

    GREG HUNT: The best approach is this: that for each particular problem you can use any of the above tools. My view in many cases is that direct action is the case. If you have a global market, if you have a genuine global market, then you could use some form of trading scheme. But unless you have that genuine global market, then you have a real issue here with carbon leakage overseas, job destruction in Australia, and the impact on grocery prices on electricity prices, on basic goods for mums and dads and pensioners and farmers.

    Lateline - 03/12/2009: Greg Hunt discusses shadow climate policy

  5. #5155
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Wow what you have described is the precursor for the biggest finacial meltdown in history.
    Yep....it is. Thoroughly agree.

    But that is how our current growth based economic system works even now. So why put off the inevitable?

    Let's face it.....this thread is dominated by a bunch of pseudo-scientific fruitloops pretending that fundamental physics doesn't affect them so I figure that if I behave like a pseudo-economic fruitloop who naively believes he lives outside the Western economic model based on kowtowing to the God of Endless Economic Growth (who is impossible - ever heard of a perpetual motion machine?) then we are all getting somewhere down the track of cancelling each other out.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  6. #5156
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Administration Team View Post
    Play the ball, not the man.
    Attachment 83205
    We don't have a ball here......just an indistinct amorphous blob closely surrounded by mental pygmies. So, if I happen to land a blow upon it, I occasionally go right through and deck a fellow pygmy.

    Poo happens.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  7. #5157
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Just in case you missed this:

    Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph 28.2.11.pdf

  8. #5158
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Environmental Science & Policy - Elsevier
    http://www.sciencedirect.com

    IN SUPPORT OF SKEPTICISM
    "Most institutions demand unqualified faith;
    but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue."
    (Merton, 1962)

    Most scientists acknowledge the importance of making science relevant and useful in policy making, while recognizing that policy is not, and should not be, based on science alone.
    In recent decades, investigations of major environmental issues such as climate change, acid rain, smog, and hypoxia have resulted in the conduct of complex integrated assessments. Such assessments organize information for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of policy making.
    In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand "scientific consensus." However, as a "community of belief" develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.
    In order to appreciate this concern, it is necessary to revisit the central role of skepticism in science. Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster's Dictionary defines skepticism as: "A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit." The Greek root of skepticism is identified as "skepticos", which means "thoughtful, inquiring."
    For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that "A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory"(Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.
    There are two dominant and somewhat opposing philosophies on testing hypothesis and theories. One philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to validate - to support or corroborate - a hypothesis. The other philosophy is that the purpose of hypothesis testing is to attempt to invalidate a hypothesis. And the same applies to model testing; there are scientists who attempt only to validate models, and others who state that the true application of the scientific method includes attempts to invalidate models and to show the limits of applicability of models. In science, attempts to invalidate hypotheses and models - hard-core skepticism, by any definition - should be viewed as a necessary positive step in the pursuit of truth. Rigorous hypotheses and models will emerge as triumphant - at least for the time being. In a problem-solving and policy-development mode, healthy skepticism is needed to ensure the rigor and effectiveness of proposed solutions. Another way of expressing the difference between these two philosophies is to state that "Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue; it is an intellectual crime" (Lakatos, 1978).
    This is why I regard consensus science and the demise of scientific skepticism as an unhealthy combination. Without the boldness and perseverance of earlier skeptics, who risked ridicule and being branded as heretics, we would still believe Earth to be the center of the Universe and continents to be motionless.
    Taking the issue of climate change as an example, there are healthy signs of increasing recognition of the importance of dealing with important methodological uncertainties. Petersen (1999), in an inspiring article entitled "Philosophy of Climate Science", states that, "Climate science has to deal with important methodological problems concerning climate simulation. Among these are methodological problems related to climate model hierarchy and complexity, tuning and falsifiability, and uncertainty. All these subjects have only recently become topics of discussion within the climate science community." He finds that uncertainties are currently not thoroughly and methodologically assessed for the purposes of policy usefulness of climate science. Barnett et al. (1999), in a scholarly article summarizing the status of detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate signal, also find that "Only recently has detection work paid serious attention to the variety of uncertainties that attend the observations and model projections of an anthropogenic signal."
    We must find improved ways of preserving and strengthening the time-honored method of scientific investigation, which includes promoting skepticism in the search for truth. We must do this at the same time that we find improved ways of making science more useful in policy making. A stronger culture of critical debate and organized skepticism needs to be fostered.
    One way of achieving these goals is for those who organize and conduct integrated assessment, and those who will use their results, to ensure that the assessments rigorously test multiple working hypotheses, identify clearly what we know and do not know, include minority (or seemingly external) views, and express confidence levels on the findings. In a political system that is based on checks and balances, substantial constituency input to and strong external oversight of the assessment process are needed to ensure the integrity of science. An Office of Science and Technology in Congress could provide the needed oversight.
    The crux of the problem is how science is taught and practiced. To protect science in the long term, "a healthy dose of skepticism" should be introduced into every young scientist's education, and more training should be provided for studying and expressing uncertainty at all levels of professional development. The scientific community should raise the standards of peer review and the demands of "adequate proof."
    If science is not to be subsumed by policy, and scientists are not to be turned into politicians, then, as Jacob Bronowski recognized, science ".... must protect independence. The safeguards which it must offer are patent: free enquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance" (Bronowski, 1958). While Bronowski went too far when he called for the "disestablishment of science" - the separation, as complete as possible, between science and government - science today needs increased safeguards.
    References

    Barnett, T.P., et al. 1999. Detection and attribution of recent climate change: a status report. Bull.Am.Met.Soc. 80(12), 2631-2659.
    Bronowski, Jacob. 1958. Science and human values. Penguin Books Ltd., p.68.
    Lakatos, Imre. 1978. Philosophical Papers 1, Cambridge U. Press, p.1
    Merton, Robert K. 1962. Social theory and social structures. Free Press, NY., p.547.

    Petersen Arthur C. 1999. Philosophy of climate science. Bull.Am.Met.Soc. 81(2), 265-271.
    Science, 1982. Creationism in schools: the decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education. Science (215), 934-943.
    Acknowledgments
    The views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
    Derek Winstanley
    Chief, Illinois State Water Survey
    Illinois Department of Natural Resources
    e-mail: dwinstan@uiuc.edu
    tel: (217) 244 5459
    fax: (217) 333 4983
    http://www.sws.uiuc.edu

    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  9. #5159
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Just in case you missed this:

    Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph 28.2.11.pdf
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  10. #5160
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Funnily enough....I reckon that is quite possibly the most sensible article that you have ever seen fit to post. And I humbly and yet heartily support the findings. In fact I've supported that view since quite early in my scientific training....

    Which just goes to show that scepticism (as with many things in life) comes in many flavours & personal preferences.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  11. #5161
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post

    What he said...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  12. #5162
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default The logical heights we should be aiming for in this thread...oh.....yeah

    KerryHomeopath [via Twitter]:

    "Your brain is 80% water, you remember stuff. Water has memory. Therefore homeopathy works."

    Eric T. Cheng [response via Quarter to 3 forum]:

    "Your brain uses electricity. Your coffee machine uses electricity. Therefore, your brain can grind coffee."



    It's logical ain't it?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  13. #5163
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    What he said...

    You astound me sometimes SD
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  14. #5164
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    We don't have a ball here......just an indistinct amorphous blob closely surrounded by mental pygmies. So, if I happen to land a blow upon it, I occasionally go right through and deck a fellow pygmy.

    Poo happens.
    I'd be saying the pygmies have well & truly feasted on the tripe bandied around here & (literally) pooed all over the new religion types wanting to believe in it. I wouldn't call a puff of hot air a blow that connected with anything.
    The political football has done the full circle since this debate here started on the ETS. Now it will get interesting in cantberra
    regards inter

  15. #5165
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Now that's funny!

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    Just in case you missed this:

    Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph 28.2.11.pdf



    Yeh, I've been busy so hadn't seen that yet. So much outrage over this latest debacle, even I can't keep up.

    That's gotta be the funniest thing I have read in a while. Couldn't read some of it till the tears cleared!

    Funniest part was it's all true.

    Hairy Princess!

  16. #5166
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Comprehensive it is not!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spoodlehouse View Post
    Just joined this group to discuss renovation - but noticed this thread and couldn't let it go by.

    There is a good discussion paper produced by the Australian Academy of Science - leading scientists in all the fields relevent to climate change have put put it together.
    Here is the link http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
    No real argument in the scientific community about the urgent need to reduce carbon pollution.

    Cheers
    Welcome to the party pal.

    First, you would do well to read the thread to avoid the duplication as indicated by posts below.

    Second, unlike consensual sex, legal contracts and pizza toppings, science does not work by agreement. After you read this thread, you would have covered this concept several times. Then if you choose to ignore this concept, it is up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    New report from Australian Academy of Science
    http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Not a bad read compared to some of the drivel out there, especially surprising given Karoly was involved. At least they use correct language some of the time, albeit in contradiction to their own statements. But still, so many assumptions, computer models, conjecture, and appeals to authority figures. Not a single fact in there proving AGW Theory!

    And as for this picture, it looks like we're going to all burst into flames soon:

  17. #5167
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I'm sorry, the number you are trying to call is no longer connected...

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    ...I agree with you that there is no real argument in the scientific community about this...
    woodbe.




    And you call others "deniers"!

  18. #5168
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Place your bets!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    If increasing taxes increases jobs, why don't all countries just keep ramping up taxes and create all these wonderful "green jobs".

    Because the only job being created here is the snowjob her and Bob Brown are giving ordinary Australians.

    Here's a reply from an affected business:


    Prime Minister Julia Gillard
    has given a spirited defence of her carbon tax policy, saying it is supported by business and will create jobs in the future.

    VS

    PAUL O'MALLEY: So the policy framework at the moment is wrong. It seems to be captured by people who don't care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia, and you just wonder whether there is an anti-manufacturing focus in Australia and that people want jobs to go offshore.

    One of these two is a lying idiot.

    Time will tell I guess, but you can guess who my money is on based on form!
    The form guide grows:
    Charlie Aitken from Southern Cross Equities reviews the rest of the news from the local share market.

    TICKY FULLERTON: Now, the market seemed to retreat from solid early gains. What was damaging sentiment?

    CHARLIE AITKEN: Well I've got to say, I think it's the carbon tax. Foreign investors are getting sick of the Gillard Government moving the regulatory goal posts in Australia.

    Already this year we've had a flood levy, we've got carbon tax apparently, we've got changes to the resource rent tax and now even rumours to how pathology rebates are handled and you saw the two big pathology stocks, Primary Health Care and Sonic get smashed today.

    So, regulatory risk is something foreign investors are getting a little upset in Australia and that's why we're underperforming, Ticky.

    TICKY FULLERTON: And this shakes through to all sorts of sectors, does it?

    CHARLIE AITKEN: It does. We've dealt with Telstra now, mining taxes, carbon taxes, flood levies which affect retailers, pathology changes. I mean, they got their finger in every pie and quite frankly the markets don't like it.

    Lateline Business - 01/03/2011: Market news wrap

    Pay attention people, your country is being sacrificed on a green altar!

  19. #5169
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Add all this up.

    They have no idea what they are doing!

    CONSUMERS would be forced to pay more in GST, stamp duty, capital gains tax and even council rates under Julia Gillard's carbon tax.

    Monash University Professor Henry Ergas said a carbon tax would cause other taxes, levies and fees to rise.

    "The carbon tax will increase the cost of supplying goods and services, particularly those that are relatively carbon intensive, and the amount of GST that will be payable will increase,'' he said.

    "There's no obvious way you can quarantine that impact because the carbon tax applies at every stage of production.''

    Mr Robb said a grocery item that carried GST would have carbon tax on the transport costs, electricity for refrigeration and other inputs and the GST would be charged on the higher ticket price.

    He questioned whether the Government's compensation would cover everyone and if it would be phased out.

    "With a new home most of the materials are energy intensive. It would be carbon tax riddled and it could add many thousands in unforeseen costs that are not being compensated for,'' he said.

    Carbon tax slug double whammy | Herald Sun

  20. #5170
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default She is gone.

    JuLIAR is over. This will end her!


    DESCRIPTIONS of Windsor as "dingo" and "traitor" are not unknown on Inverell radio station 2NZ either. It ran a phone-in on the carbon tax, and in 30 minutes fielded 111 calls against and only three calls for. Tamworth's Northern Daily Leader ran a poll that found 75 per cent of people were against a carbon price.
    John "Wacka" Williams, a Nationals senator and farm machine supplier from Inverell, says New England locals are "very very angry" with Windsor, and worried about increased costs of electricity and fuel and job losses under a carbon tax, which will do nothing for the environment.
    "I think people are getting very annoyed with Tony Windsor," he told ABC radio yesterday.


    Oakeshott's conservative Lyne electorate in northern NSW voted just 13 per cent for Labor and 4 per cent for the Greens at the last election, so they are none too happy about his embrace of the Brown-Gillard pact, as shown by the latest polling. His personal approval rating has plunged from 63 per cent net positive support to negative 12 per cent, a 75-point turnaround. Ouch.


    As for Greens leader Bob Brown, now he's giving Wayne Swan public lectures on how to deal with the Opposition, and boasting about how the Government adopted his carbon tax platform. His cocky performance on Monday in the Senate shows hubris is coming early to the Greens.
    Mr 13 Per Cent is ruling the roost, a cuckoo in the Labor nest who has given Gillard a policy and philosophy framework she never had, and the nation a nightmare it never asked for.


    This is the whirlwind that the independents have reaped.


    Tax betrayal haunts Independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott | Herald Sun

  21. #5171
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Poor Tony, just got owned again!

    Serves him right for being such a zealot, and arguing with all his guests who keep trying to explain reality to him:

    TONY JONES: Well you've made the argument about Germany, for example - I've heard you make that publicly. But surely the real question about Germany is not the impact that what happens there has on global warming over the whole planet, it's the impact it has on the amount of renewable energy that's used for electricity generation, in particular in Germany. And the percentages have changed dramatically. For example, in 2000 they had six per cent of their energy come from electricity. A mere nine years later in 2009, it's up to 16 per cent.

    BJORN LOMBERG: Sorry, and the question is?

    TONY JONES: Well, I'm just saying that they're moving towards changing their energy mix through these targets. In fact, their future targets are even higher: they plan to get to 35 per cent by 2020.

    BJORN LOMBERG: Absolutely. But, listen, Tony, the point here is to recognise we could basically shift all of the world to green energy right now. The technology is not the problem in the sense that if cost doesn't matter, then we can do it today. We could do it with 1950s technology.

    The issue here is it's not going to happen as long as it's very, very expensive, and Germany is a good case for that. As long as they spend huge amounts of subsidies - and the biggest cost of course is with solar panels, which Germany's the biggest consumer per capita of in the world, they're essentially spending large sums of money to do very little for climate change.

    I would much rather see them spend that same money, for instance on research and development, so you would get large impacts in the long run. This is not about us feeling good, this is about making sure that we do good in the long run.

    TONY JONES: I've got to make the counter-argument, ...

    BJORN LOMBERG: Sure.

    TONY JONES: ... because you say they're doing nothing to fix climate change overall, but in Germany they're changing their mix of electricity, how they get their electricity, to renewables.

    In fact if they do what they plan and get up to 35 per cent by 2020, 80 per cent by 2050, if every country did the same thing, you'd have a massive global shift, wouldn't you?

    BJORN LOMBERG: Listen, first of all, let's remember this is for electricity, the numbers that you were just talking about. They're not changing their cars, they're not changing many of the other productions and where we're using fossil fuels.

    Yes, everybody has great aspirational hopes for 2050, but of course that's also a long ways away and we have no reason to believe that that's actually going to come true. If we look at virtually all the promises that have been made until now for climate change, they've almost invariably not come true. So I would be very sceptical about that.

    But, yes, if you put in place more CO2-neutral energy technologies, of course you are going to make a slight impact on global warming. But as long as you spend vast sums of money doing fairly little good, you're not actually going to get China and India and everybody else on board. You're just going to have those few countries do a little good.

    And you alluded to it - I'm sure you've read it, but I'd like to just share this with the viewers, actually the German example, they've spent $75 billion on subsidising solar panels, the net effect which will be to postpone global warming by the end of the century by seven hours.

    That's not spending money smartly. That's simply throwing away money to feel good.

    Lateline - 02/03/2011: Solving warming is about innovation: Lomborg
    Tony, don't invite people on your show and try to shoot them down if you don't know what you're talking about. You just strengthen their argument by looking like a foolish zealot!

    And Tony, this guy wholeheartedly believes in the AGW hypothesis. He's just correctly pointing out that this fictional dream the greenies have some people believing is a fairy tale that will solve nothing.

  22. #5172
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    KerryHomeopath [via Twitter]:

    "Your brain is 80% water, you remember stuff. Water has memory. Therefore homeopathy works."

    Eric T. Cheng [response via Quarter to 3 forum]:

    "Your brain uses electricity. Your coffee machine uses electricity. Therefore, your brain can grind coffee."

    It's logical ain't it?
    Very logical

    I like this other one too:

    Eat sh##, millions of flies can not be wrong ....

    (Sorry not you of course)
    Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones.
    Seneca

  23. #5173
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default


    Always informative and educational. Cheers mate.

  24. #5174
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Prime Minister Brown really is calling the shots now!

    ONCE again the Gillard government is seen to be following the lead and policy agenda of the Greens - this time on "territories' rights", which is code for euthanasia and same-sex marriage. The Greens have extracted Labor backing for their own agenda on issues that Labor MPs have been denied the chance to express views - or been given detailed briefings in return for one vote in a minority government. Labor's agenda is being distorted by the Greens, and Julia Gillard's authority is being diminished as business fears grow she is losing control of the formulation of a carbon price.
    Only a few days after Greens' leader Bob Brown stood in the Prime Minister's courtyard and declared the plan for a carbon tax to be the Greens plan - and his deputy, Christine Milne, declared petrol had to be included in that tax - the Greens have again taken charge.
    Gillard signed a pact with the Greens to remain Prime Minister, a pact she knew was damaging her image among Labor supporters and a pact she tried to diminish by dumping a raft of inefficient, Greens-backed renewable energy programs in favour of giving flood assistance to Queenslanders.
    The Prime Minister had to rapidly rescind that decision and restore the solar energy funds at the Greens' behest. This was an abrupt reminder of the Greens' power, but the image of the Greens standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Gillard when announcing the carbon tax was one of Greens' leadership.
    Brown's presumptive power, based on Adam Bandt's election to the House of Representatives in August last year, is giving him the profile of national leadership at Gillard's expense.
    Already suffering prime ministerial confusion with Kevin Rudd acting as our leader on the international stage, Gillard has had to cede ground to Brown on flood funding, same-sex marriage, a carbon tax and euthanasia.


    Brown crowding out PM on policy | The Australian
    Let's count JuLIAR's lies:
    "I rule out a carbon tax."

    While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election

    She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.

    Ms Gillard's proposal for a citizens' assembly to discuss climate change, announced after she replaced Mr Rudd as leader, has been heavily criticised.

    She now rules out any change in her opposition to same-sex marriage during the life of her government. She said she appreciated "our heritage as a Christian country" and believed "the marriage act has a special status in our culture".

    Julia Gillard's carbon price promise | The Australian
    But unlike JuLIAR, the Labor back bench don't like being Greenie puppets:

    JULIA Gillard has agreed to consider overturning the government's support for an Australian Greens' plan that would open the way for the nation's first same-sex marriage laws after an angry revolt by Labor MPs.

    The Labor revolt culminated yesterday morning with a delegation of three senators to Ms Gillard's office to complain and seek a policy reversal.
    Labor senators were so incensed with Mr Crean's presentation as Regional Affairs Minister at the partyroom meeting on Tuesday morning, they secretly approached Coalition senators and organised for the Liberals to ask Senator Brown to agree to delay the introduction of his bill, due this week, and refer it to the legal and constitutional affairs committee for an inquiry.


    Labor revolt on gay marriage | The Australian


    "they secretly approached Coalition senators and organised for the Liberals to ask"






    Please Liberal Senators, please help us stop the evil greenies, they've taken control of JuLIAR's brain.





    It would be so much funnier if it wasn't our country going down the toilet.

  25. #5175
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Flushhhhhh.

    Heavy fall in Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence, 114.0 (down 6.6pts)
    After Prime Minister Gillard announced new plans for a Carbon Tax


    [Roy Morgan Research] Morgan Poll
    Awesome, huh!

  26. #5176
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default This is why JuLIAR won't do a cost benefit analysis for any of her policies.

    In 2009, Australia accounted for 1.38% of CO2 emissions.

    This percentage is shrinking rapidly as China and India massively increase CO2 emissions.

    Just the annual increase in global CO2 emissions is twice the size of Australia's total emissions (2.8% per year).

    This means if Australia disappeared under the ocean today and had zero emissions, in six months the global CO2 emissions would be back on the same track.

    With these zero CO2 emissions from us, the global temperature may be 1/100th of a degree celsius cooler (assuming all the computer models are correct ).

    We cannot even measure this change in the temperature!

    And we are not cutting by 100% today, the goal is 5% by 2020!

    At what financial and social cost to Australians lives.

    Another failed green dream scheme turning our great country into a nightmare.

    More info here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im..._australia.pdf

  27. #5177
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Welcome to socialist wealth redistribution.

    The Prime Minister today failed to answer a question about the proportion of her carbon tax revenue that will be set aside for the United Nations Green Climate Fund, as agreed by the Australian Government at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and reconfirmed at the 2010 Cancun Conference.


    In contrast ALP backbenchers have been primed to mislead the public to say that all the carbon tax money will be spent on Australian families. For example Deborah O’Neil, the Member for Robertson, stated this morning that “ … the main message is that every cent that is raised by a carbon price is going to go back into assisting households with their household bills and that’s what really matters to the people in my electorate.”

    In reality, the fact is that in the Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing released on 5 November 2010, but written earlier in the year with the assistance of then Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance - Bob McMullen MP - on behalf of the Australian Government (page 4), it was recommended that: “Based on a carbon price of US$20-US$25 per ton of CO2 equivalent, auctions of emission allowances and domestic carbon taxes in developed countries with up to 10 per cent of total revenues allocated for international climate action could potentially mobilize around US$30 billion annually.” (pages 5-6) ...

    How many billions of this “carbon tax” will be hived off by the UN? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    This tax was ridiculous even when it was going to remain in Australia.

    This is approaching ludicrous!

  28. #5178
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Time to put in your buck o' five.



    Another green idea causes an almighty stink - and yet more of those big bills:

    San Francisco’s big push for low-flow toilets has turned into a multimillion-dollar plumbing stink.
    Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes, said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission. That has created a rotten-egg stench near AT&T Park and elsewhere, especially during the dry summer months.
    The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem.
    Now officials are stocking up on a $14 million, three-year supply of highly concentrated sodium hypochlorite - better known as bleach - to act as an odor eater and to disinfect the city’s treated water before it’s dumped into the bay.


    Save the planet! Drown in crud | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    You were warned:

    EDITED POST

  29. #5179
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You tell ém Bob.

    Instead of analysing the global warming issue – about which, more below – press commentary continues to endlessly recycle tired, stale, sanctimonious and entirely misleading clichés about carbon pollution, climate change and energy efficiency. Everyone, it seems, has a strong opinion, yet almost none of these opinions are grounded in the empirical science facts that society used to view as the essential basis for good public policy decisions.

    Do you understand the meaning of the phrases “empirical science” and “hypothesis testing”?


    Do you understand that the correct null hypothesis is that gentle warmings, such as that which occurred between 1979 and 1998, and equivalent coolings, are to be viewed as due to natural causes unless and until evidence indicates otherwise. Gentlemen, where is that evidence, and why is it not presented in the voluminous reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that you and the government so often refer to?

    Dragging another skeletal warhorse out of the cupboard, Mr Combet makes the highly original assertion that “Business needs the certainty of a carbon (sic) price”. Yes, it most certainly does, Minister, and as Terry McCrann has endlessly pointed out, that certainty should be a price for carbon dioxide emissions of zero dollars per tonne. Then the power utility companies can get on with planning the mix of new coal, gas and nuclear power stations that are now urgently needed to secure Australia’s future.
    Never has an important national policy issue been so surrounded with public dishonesty and deliberate ambiguity of language as is the issue of dangerous, human-caused global warming.


    Choreographed over the years by green lobby groups, politicians and commentators alike now participate like puppets-on-strings in an entirely faux public gigue involving words or phrases like “carbon” (when they mean carbon dioxide), “pollution” (when they are referring to an environmentally beneficial trace gas), “settled science” (when the science is hotly contested, and the onus of proof of danger still rests, unattained, with the climate alarmists of a discredited IPCC), “climate change” (when they mean dangerous global warming), “energy efficiency” (in the same breath that they rule out the environmentally friendly baseload energy source represented by nuclear power) and “international good citizen” (at a time when international action on climate policy has never been less certain).


    It is therefore entirely unsurprising that there has been a swing in public opinion against alarmism on global warming, though nervous Labor politicians are doubtless already sucking in deep breaths of surprise at the apparent strength of the swing. One recent online poll, in The Age of all places, received an 89% NO answer to the question “Would you support a climate tax?”; and another, in the Herald-Sun and with more than 30,000 respondents, received an 85% NO to the question “Do you support a price on carbon (sic)?”.

    Quadrant Online - Shhsshh … don’t talk about the science
    And who said we never put science up here.

  30. #5180
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Track record for green dream schemes

    See what green madness, unchecked, can lead to. Ask why almost no journalists or academics even questioned this gigantic folly at the time:
    MELBURNIANS will face rocketing water bills over the next 30 years to pay for the state’s desalination plant.
    Premier Ted Baillieu yesterday admitted the contract signed by the former Labor Government couldn’t be broken and the “white elephant’’ desalination plant could cost a maximum $23.9 billion
    The desalinated water will cost up to $13.50 a kilolitre - compared to just $1 for our current supplies.
    A review by PriceWaterhouseCoopers shows the cost of the project will run to $19.3 billion without any water being sent to homes.
    And think what the alternative was - the dam that the Labor Government would not even mention for years.
    Where a new dam for Melbourne was planned:
    (T)he Mitchell has a huge catchment area - so big, in fact, that it would normally fill a dam the size of the Thomson, our biggest, three times faster than that dam fills now. It’s a river that floods badly around every decade.
    The likely cost of such a dam:
    What happened to that planned dam:
    The first excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam:

    After all, ommmed the then Deputy Premier and Minister for No Water, John Thwaites, all remaining “water (was) currently used by the rivers”.
    The second excuse the dam-phobic Labor Government gave for not building the dam:
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...orias_history/



    Multiply this failure by a billion and you'll be in the ball park of the Carbon Dioxide Tax failure they will try to force on us.

  31. #5181
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:



    Don't worry, that's just the sea ice recovery spooling up...

    woodbe.

  32. #5182
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    You astound me sometimes SD
    I only aim to please.

    My opinions on this entire topic are far too complicated expound here. I know. I've tried before.

    Suffice to say....whilst I strongly support the scepticism exhibited here in this thread....I'm usually appalled at how misdirected it is, how uninformed it often is and (worst) how politically motivated it is.

    Scepticism to satisfy a personal political belief is a hollow charade of scepticism......and is therefore of no real value to anything other than a political debate.


    As for the proposed Carbon Tax....check out the attachment to see one of the reasons why it won't provide the benefits that are often being expounded for it.

    It is basically money (in millions) spent by the Federal Government on fossil fuel subsidies compared to climate change mitigation/adaptation programs....

    I'll let Bernard Keane from Crikey explain:

    "Earlier this week, the Australian Conservation Foundation released an analysis http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/..._subsidies.pdf comparing how much the Federal Government spent encouraging fossil fuel usage compared to how much it spent on climate change programs in recent years.

    We asked the ACF for their data and then supplemented it with our own research to try to provide a longer-term take on the comparison. The ACF has compiled data on climate change programs announced in budgets going back to 1997, so we tried to collate data on all the rebates, tax expenditures and other types of spending that encourage fossil fuel use back to 1997 as well.

    Some caveats are in order. The chief source for the data is Treasury's annual Tax Expenditures statement, which tries to nail down how much revenue is lost through tax concessions, exemptions and deductions. The quality of Treasury's Tax Expenditures work has improved each year, but that means the further you go back, the less data there is. Where necessary, we've used a deflator to simply reduce the value of a fossil fuel subsidy by inflation, and tried to err on the conservative side in doing so. We've also used the biggest figures we could find for climate change programs.

    In some years, the forecast expenditure on climate change programs hasn't eventuated, but rather than use the real figure, we've given government the benefit of the doubt and used the higher forecast figure, not the actual spending. On the other hand, we calculated the increase in the lost revenue from the 2001 ending of fuel excise indexation differently to the ACF to provide what we think is higher, more realistic figure.

    The first blush result confirms that the enormous disparity identified by the ACF from 2007-10 is only the worsening of an existing problem from the 1990s. This is the comparison of the ACF's identified fossil fuel subsidies versus climate change programs, in millions of dollars."



    So....here's an idea.....instead of a carbon price right now.....why not simply cut back on those fossil fuel subsidies until such time as a world wide carbon mitigation regime is in play.....and then think about a carbon price. The money saved could then be spent on making industry and the general public more carbon efficient so when the price does come....the pain is mitigated. Yeah I know......flying pigs
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails bernard1.jpg  
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  33. #5183
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Meanwhile, back in the real world:



    Don't worry, that's just the sea ice recovery spooling up...

    woodbe.
    Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.

    Perhaps if the tory's opened their minds to the possibility, then some well rounded discussions can be had.

    Until such time, they are going to deny even the most sensible and balanced rationale because they are too focussed on losing face. Shameful really. There are other people on this earth besides the arrogant few.

    Meanwhile, as they stew on the petty issues, others are getting on with the pragmatic and forward thinking approaches. I am confident they will look back, once this legislation is passed, and scratch their heads in bewilderment as to why they didn't focus on the macro issues that actually affect the globe and not just their staunch political stance.

  34. #5184
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.
    Another trouble could be you are looking through a window into another world....and that world is looking at you with much the same feeling.

    A clash of heads is rarely considered a compromise.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  35. #5185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Meanwhile, back in the real world:



    Don't worry, that's just the sea ice recovery spooling up...

    woodbe.
    The problem with graphs, charts, data etc. supposedly confirming the existence of AGW is that there are as many,if not more, of the for ma that disprove the hypothesis of AGW. And it should be stated by well credentialed scientists. As Silent has observed, in his view, they are concluded along political lines. In some cases this may well be the case, but I would argue not all. This premise is based on the belief that those who do not believe in the hypothesis of AGW are rusted on conservative voters. I believe this perspective does not take into consideration the mounting number of sceptics who want to challenge the hypothesis of AGW. From my perspective this is a false premise. I also acknowledge that we all get caught up in the heat of the debate. That not withstanding I think most people search the argument which has the facts embedded in it. That leads me to climategate and the undeniable distortion of the facts by the sellers of AGW. And the question I continually ask, and which is never answered is WHY did they, the AGW salesmen, lie their collective @rses of or deliberately distort the facts? I've never heard an answer to this question.

    I'm nobody special other than I seek the truth and I vote. Just like a lot of other Australians.

    And, for the record, I'm not a rusted on conservative,I just hate being lied to by a government that wants to put its hand in my pocket and give my money to whomever it thinks is deserving ( like Flim bloody Flannery) (Grossly overpaid salesman extraordinaire).

  36. #5186
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark53 View Post
    The problem with graphs, charts, data etc. supposedly confirming the existence of AGW
    Nope. Not at all. Look again.

    The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW.

    woodbe.

  37. #5187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Another trouble could be you are looking through a window into another world....and that world is looking at you with much the same feeling.

    A clash of heads is rarely considered a compromise.

    To true Silent, to true. But fundamentally ,is there a compromise to be found? On such a divisive subject it is difficult to find any middle ground.

    On one side there is a belief by the believers that they have been delivered copies of an environmental mantra to live by. On the other side they know that the believers have been delivered ten copies of the Kings Cross Whisperer ( a nineteen sixties seedy rag) which nobody should be living by.( I'm trying to find a compromise Silent, but it's extremely elusive).

  38. #5188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope. Not at all. Look again.

    The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW.

    woodbe.

    Yep I can see that Woodbe but climategate was all about data too. I'll leave it to the resident sleuths, Freud, Rod and Marc, to make it look like a piece of Jarlsberg. It's to late in the night for me. Cheers

  39. #5189
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope. Not at all. Look again.

    The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW.

    woodbe.
    No that is true so why post it here if not to represent some miss guided view that this is caused by AGW?

    You are trying to be too clever here Woodbee just a little bit like JuLIAR.

    Try calling a spade a spade life is much easier that way.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  40. #5190
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    110

    Default From the planet "Tory".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.

    Perhaps if the tory's opened their minds to the possibility, then some well rounded discussions can be had.

    Until such time, they are going to deny even the most sensible and balanced rationale because they are too focussed on losing face. Shameful really. There are other people on this earth besides the arrogant few.

    Meanwhile, as they stew on the petty issues, others are getting on with the pragmatic and forward thinking approaches. I am confident they will look back, once this legislation is passed, and scratch their heads in bewilderment as to why they didn't focus on the macro issues that actually affect the globe and not just their staunch political stance.
    Hey JamesMelbourne, what the bloody hell is a "Tory"? From your rant it sounds like a political being or is it an anal probe for the socialistically constipated? Could you please, using your most eloquent expensive ethical legal language, reference this description of a political being, or an anal probe, to the reality of Australian politics. Tah.

  41. #5191
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark53 View Post
    Hey JamesMelbourne, what the bloody hell is a "Tory"?
    He actually wrote "tory" not "Tory".

    A dictionary will provide the answer:

    tory: A supporter of traditional political and social institutions against the forces of reform; a political conservative.

    and, just in case...

    conservative: Resistant to change
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  42. #5192
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Interesting stuff SBD

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post

    The first blush result confirms that the enormous disparity identified by the ACF from 2007-10 is only the worsening of an existing problem from the 1990s. This is the comparison of the ACF's identified fossil fuel subsidies versus climate change programs, in millions of dollars."
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    BJORN LOMBERG: I'd like to just share this with the viewers, actually the German example, they've spent $75 billion on subsidising solar panels
    So Australia with 22 Million people or therabouts has subsidised the fossil fuel industry for about $30bn in the last three years ($10bn/year), while Germany, with 80 Million people has subsidised a thriving PV industry since 2000 to the tune of $75bn ($7.5bn/year) That means we're spending about 5 times as much per capita on subsidies for fossil fuel than the Germans are for solar?

    Oh yea, those Germans are off their rockers. Building a renewables business like that for so little money.

    woodbe.

  43. #5193
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    No that is true so why post it here if not to represent some miss guided view that this is caused by AGW?

    You are trying to be too clever here Woodbee just a little bit like JuLIAR.

    Try calling a spade a spade life is much easier that way.
    I posted the graphic because it denounces a long running and common thread by denialists that the Arctic is not warming, with or without AGW.

    Please keep your liar smears to yourself. You are stepping over the line on this post Rod.

    woodbe.

  44. #5194
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    My opinions on this entire topic are far too complicated expound here. I know. I've tried before.

    Suffice to say....whilst I strongly support the scepticism exhibited here in this thread....I'm usually appalled at how misdirected it is, how uninformed it often is and (worst) how politically motivated it is.

    Scepticism to satisfy a personal political belief is a hollow charade of scepticism......and is therefore of no real value to anything other than a political debate.


    As for the proposed Carbon Tax....check out the attachment to see one of the reasons why it won't provide the benefits that are often being expounded for it.
    SBD raises an excellent point. One side here holds the untenable and unsupported position that AGW doesn't exist. While many of us on the other side have been defending AGW (mainly for the benefit of the casual reader), the real debate should be on the form of our response to AGW and not the existence of AGW.

    Unfortunately, the deniers are pushing the ambit claim that AGW is false has moved the argument away from where is should be focused - the shape-and-form of the carbon price.

    I think that the deniers (they certainly aren't sceptics in the true sense of the word) do themselves a great disservice as to continually dismissing well researched and well reviewed science outright only makes their position look nonsensical.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  45. #5195
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default No wonder you think it is complicated.

    These hints may help explain why you find this all so complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    whilst I strongly support the scepticism exhibited here in this thread....I'm usually appalled at how misdirected it is, how uninformed it often is
    It is very easy to make vague claims. Can you please quote any of my misdirected or uninformed scepticism? Vague claims without evidence does tend to complicate things. Now, where have we seen that before?


    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    As for the proposed Carbon Tax
    There is no "proposed Carbon Tax". There is a proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax. Things get very complicated when people don't know the difference between a Carbon atom (C) and a Carbon Dioxide molecule (CO2).

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    compared to climate change mitigation/adaptation programs
    If you refer to climate change, things get complicated because the climate always has changed, is changing now, and always will change. As far as I am aware, there are no government programs to mitigate this.

    If you actually mean AGW hypothesis mitigation programs, then it is no wonder you find this so complicated. But it does sound very silly trying to mitigate a hypothesis, doesn't it? No wonder they keep changing the name?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    instead of a carbon price right now
    See above for the Carbon bit again, but there will be no "Carbon Dioxide" price right now either. There is a proposal for a Carbon Dioxide Tax right now (1 July 2012 actually). There is some airy fairy idea about a Carbon Dioxide price possibly in the future sometime depending on various yet to be determined criteria, no doubt including the ubiquitous "global action", which will never happen, leaving us with a permanent Carbon Dioxide Tax that the government of the day can ramp up at will. See, not so complicated when it is all sorted.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    until such time as a world wide carbon mitigation regime is in play
    Combine all of the hints above and unscramble your sentence, then you will see why you think this is so complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The money saved could then be spent on making industry and the general public more carbon efficient
    Why would we want to be more Carbon Dioxide efficient? Does this mean we should stop exercising so we breathe out less? Are the plants gonna be happy if we get rid of all the Carbon Dioxide? Mate, this will be much less complicated if you just start using the correct scientific terms.

    For the people who claim to have "the science" on their side, you guys don't involve yourselves in it much.

  46. #5196
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Find me one of these, they sound weird!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Trouble is mate, no matter what you say to a backwards thinking tory, it will never get through the persistent arrogance.
    It's a good thing we have none of these "backwards thinking tory's" here then. It would be interesting to hear some of their views if you can find one? Ask one of them what the hell "backwards thinking" means as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Perhaps if the tory's opened their minds to the possibility, then some well rounded discussions can be had.
    Are you referring here again to only the backward thinking tory's, or do you include the forward thinking tory's? And maybe if you told them exactly what "possibility" they were supposed to open their minds to, they might.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Until such time, they are going to deny even the most sensible and balanced rationale because they are too focussed on losing face. Shameful really. There are other people on this earth besides the arrogant few.
    This is getting a bit vague now. Don't the magistrates or judges pull you up on this stuff?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jamesmelbourne View Post
    Meanwhile, as they stew on the petty issues, others are getting on with the pragmatic and forward thinking approaches. I am confident they will look back, once this legislation is passed, and scratch their heads in bewilderment as to why they didn't focus on the macro issues that actually affect the globe and not just their staunch political stance.
    This a very vague. It appears that you have created a fictional future scenario and then used your psychic powers to project how "backwards thinking tory's" would feel about it? Is this the type of "science" you guys keep referring to, because you never want to post any?

  47. #5197
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Me too and three!

    Quote Originally Posted by mark53 View Post
    I'm nobody special other than I seek the truth and I vote. Just like a lot of other Australians.

    And, for the record, I'm not a rusted on conservative,I just hate being lied to by a government that wants to put its hand in my pocket and give my money to whomever it thinks is deserving ( like Flim bloody Flannery) (Grossly overpaid salesman extraordinaire).
    Mate, from all the people I have met, this representation fits most of them. I have argued with left wing idiots and right wing idiots who blindly follow their own political ideologies on this subject, but it is fortunate they are both the minority. Most people on both sides of mainstream politics just want to know who to believe.

    The first thing I teach them is that science doesn't work on beliefs, and that they should always ask for and search for empirical evidence or facts. I explain the facts that I have ascertained to them, and ask then to go out and let me know if they ever find any empirical evidence to the contrary. Guess how many have come back to disagree by presenting their evidence?

    But according to the AGW hypothesis brigade, we are all being funded by big oil to kill the futures of our children and children. I guess it doesn't get much more scientific than that.

  48. #5198
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Science does not compromise!

    See post above.

    You don't need to compromise, you need to arm yourself with facts and debunk the mantra that is based on fiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by mark53 View Post
    To true Silent, to true. But fundamentally ,is there a compromise to be found? On such a divisive subject it is difficult to find any middle ground.

    On one side there is a belief by the believers that they have been delivered copies of an environmental mantra to live by. On the other side they know that the believers have been delivered ten copies of the Kings Cross Whisperer ( a nineteen sixties seedy rag) which nobody should be living by.( I'm trying to find a compromise Silent, but it's extremely elusive).

    I live my life free of compromise, and step into the shadows without complaint or regret.
    Rorschach.

  49. #5199
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Desperate.

    The massive public backlash against JuLIAR's massive and useless Carbon Dioxide Tax has at least had one positive benefit. The AGW hypothesis brigade has come out of hiding in a desperate attempt to build some credibility back in their argument.

    But they have nothing new:

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nope. Not at all. Look again.

    The chart is just showing data. It doesn't have any text on it explaining a link with AGW.

    woodbe.
    Neither does this chart:




    Because neither of them has any empirical scientific evidence proving they were caused by human CO2 emissions in accordance with the AGW hypothesis.

    By your own admission, even you have ceased trying to link this "data" by some spurious link to the AGW hypothesis.

    But Rod is right, no-one has been discussing this topic for many pages, so why the sudden graph, then dodgy reason for posting. It does have the whiff of desperation about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mark53 View Post
    Yep I can see that Woodbe but climategate was all about data too. I'll leave it to the resident sleuths, Freud, Rod and Marc, to make it look like a piece of Jarlsberg. It's to late in the night for me. Cheers
    We already have many times earlier in the thread. It is well worth a read. That is why Woodbe no longer tries to argue a link to the AGW hypothesis.
    Last edited by Dr Freud; 5th Mar 2011 at 06:13 AM. Reason: Forgot one hypothesis. + new.

  50. #5200
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Tough guys

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    conservative: Resistant to change
    If they are impervious to change, no wonder they don't care about climate change.

    They'll be just fine.

Page 104 of 377 FirstFirst ... 4 54 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 154 204 ... 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
  •