Emission Trading and climate change

Page 62 of 377 FirstFirst ... 12 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 112 162 ... LastLast
Results 3,051 to 3,100 of 18819
  1. #3051
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Watson my dear fellow I print it off and use it for bum wrap, well I wont run out for the foreseable future now will I !


  2. #3052
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    .zero carbon footprint.
    I totally disagree, you will still have traces of carbon on your Sole ..man!

  3. #3053
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    There ya go...at least I helped the thread get to 3500 posts

  4. #3054
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    You spin me right round baby right round like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a...like a.....SSSSSSSHHHRFFFFFFFXHXHXXXXXXXXXXKKK

    ....give that man a cigar.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  5. #3055
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Cohiba will be followed by my Uppman just dont tell the wife I'm still smoking them!



  6. #3056
    Novice wolfbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Yarra Valley
    Posts
    39

    Talking

    What ya been talkin bout! I've only just arrived here
    When the sun doesn't come up tomorrow start to worry
    Just like the seasons weather patterns go in cycles
    It's one in all in isn't it?
    Whatever government regs are put into force in the land of Oz ie make the cheque out to the Gillard/Rudd/Abbott govt. whoever is in charge if the other countries down play ball or vise versa you got nothing, except the voiuce in your own head!

  7. #3057
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Welcome to the Peanut Paddock....may you spread your brand of fertiliser well and with great gusto.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  8. #3058
    Novice wolfbunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Yarra Valley
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Which ways the wind blowing

  9. #3059
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Dare I ask, Freudian slip?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Article in latest ECOS magazine from the CSIRO entitled 'Can we reduce emissions with an emission trading scheeme?'
    http://www.ecosmagazine.com/view/dsp...=2010&direct=1

    Worth a read....
    Already asked and answered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Junior climate change minister Greg Combet was unable to guarantee the ETS would reduce Australia's emissions by 2020.

    Let's just call it an innocent typo.

    But seriously, for something called Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, there wasn't much talk of any global solutions.

    Except for this bit:

    "Philip Sutton believes that the transition to
    a safe climate could happen in as little as
    seven years."

    Really?

    Altering standards in Australia could lead to a safer global climate in 7 years?


  10. #3060
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Apologies for the confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    According to that particular graph from that particular model.....about 0.7 of one degree which makes it about 70% of the positive drivers.....no idea what the level of confidence is around that prediction but I'll wager that if it got this far it'd have to be reasonably high.
    Perhaps my questions was unclear, as it appears you've provided an answer to the question: What does one assumption based computer model predict might be a reasonable guess within controlled parameters of the percentage attributable only to the limited variables assessed?

    Perhaps rephrasing it may help?

    As you have indicated that the average measured temperature increase over the last 150 years is not 100% attributable to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, what percentage of this temperature increase has been proved to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    As for computer models......all streams of science...be it climate, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics......whatever......they all rely in some way on computer models just like the ones you fear. In fact, most of the climate models are merely derivations of models used previously in other physical science streams for decades. They are far far far more mainstream than you obviously care to know. And they sure as hell aren't psychic.

    Indulge me.....before crying 'invisible black box psychic turkey' when someone talks about computer modelling....trying learning a little more about them. It'll do you good.
    I have mentioned many times in this thread (unless the good Mr Watson has unleashed the IT Langoliers) that computer models have their place in science, nay the world in general.

    But suggesting that the output from a computer model can be considered to prove a real world chaotic phenomenon with unknown inputs, ill-defined parameters, and evolving outcomes, is beyond comprehension. I've learnt a lot about them, and has it has done me good. It is good to know their limitations.

    Consider that the Dirty Harry model.

  11. #3061
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Greenies are absurd and ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ....that statement is taking absurd to a new level of.......ridiculous. Honestly, that's as polite as I can be....

    In an effort to provide an intelligent response....(wouldn't be hard)
    Veggieworld: Why eating greens won't save the planet - environment - 20 July 2010 - New Scientist
    Nice article, nice summary:

    "When you add this to the growing population, the United Nations' best guess is that by 2050, the world will need to more than double its production of meat - an increase that would be environmentally disastrous."


    Meanwhile: Absurd? Ridiculous? Don't be polite, give those wacko greenies both barrels.

    Absurd and ridiculous indeed.

  12. #3062
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What drew out the climate debate at long last?

    "Questions are being asked about the chance of former PM Kevin Rudd being given a ministerial position if Labor is re-elected, after revelations about the way he administered national security...

    ...If the Government is re-elected, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she will give him a job on the frontbench...

    ...The National Security Committee of Cabinet is where the gravest decisions of government are made, from the conduct of war to the protection of the borders. The prime minister chairs the gathering of ministers and senior officials. The inner circle includes the chief of the defence force, the secretary of foreign affairs and the Australian Federal Police commissioner.

    The heads of Australian intelligence agencies are also there.
    Senior government officials say John Howard was scrupulous in attending the meetings.

    But Commonwealth officials and cabinet sources have told the ABC that, as prime minister, Mr Rudd showed a casual disregard for the national security committee, at a time when Australia was engaged in a war and wrestling with its border security policy.
    The ABC has learned that several times the then prime minister allowed his 31-year-old chief of staff Alister Jordan to deputise for him on the committee, when Mr Rudd was late or did not attend at all...

    ...The revelations also raise questions about Ms Gillard's role and whether she raised any concerns about key areas of the administration.

    Retired admiral Chris Barrie, former chief of the defence force, says he would expect ministers to pipe up in such a situation.

    "If it wasn't running right I'd expect those ministers to say something about it," he said..."

    Rudd faces cabinet neglect claims - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


    We have this story to thank for finally drawing out Gillard's climate change policy. Less than 2 hours later, in the middle of the night, the "climate revolution" was "leaked" by parties unknown:


    "Prime Minister Julia Gillard is set to unveil the ALP's new climate change policy today, two and half months after the Federal Government decided to shelve its emissions trading scheme...

    ...In a speech in Brisbane today, the ABC understands Ms Gillard will outline plans to set up a committee of scientists to advise the Government on climate change.

    The committee will be paired with a citizens' assembly consisting of 100-200 volunteers who will gauge feeling of the community on its attitude towards putting a price on carbon and feed it back to the Government..."

    WOW!!!

    A committee of scientists to advise the government on climate change???

    I knew those CSIRO bozo's had no idea what they were talking about.

    Obviously Gillard doesn't place much stock in Wong's (that's Penny Wong who's been kidnapped by aliens ) advice from the IPCC either.

    The best part, 200 volunteers to voice community feeling on imposing a massive useless tax on all Australians that will drive up their electricity prices and general cost of living, thereby reducing their living standards, for zero environmental benefit?

    I think you'll get some good feedback on this Joolia.

    Gillard to unveil new climate measures - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  13. #3063
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's now called "the climate issue".

    "Her speech, to be given at the University of Queensland, is a sharp repudiation of dumped prime minister Kevin Rudd's do-as-I-say approach and an attempt by Ms Gillard to neutralise the political risks of the climate issue...

    ...According to part of Ms Gillard's speech, obtained by The Australian..."

    Gillard seeks new climate consensus | The Australian


    Gee, I wonder where they got select parts of Gillard's speech from?

    Still, if the goal of your climate change policy is to distract from damning reports of government incompetence and "neutralise political risks", the environment is not likely to get a look-in.

  14. #3064
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's all ok again.

    These crazy dudes reckon we can still have babies.

    "JULIA Gillard's focus on a "sustainable population" is an excuse for failing to tackle questions on infrastructure, the environment and social policy, according to two of Australia's leading economists.

    And one of Labor's three hand-picked population panellists, demographer Graeme Hugo, said population growth was necessary and need not conflict with economic, social and environmental sustainability..."


    Population focus a cover for failure, says RBA director | The Australian

  15. #3065
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Absurd and ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    ....that statement is taking absurd to a new level of.......ridiculous. Honestly, that's as polite as I can be....

    In an effort to provide an intelligent response....(wouldn't be hard)
    Veggieworld: Why eating greens won't save the planet - environment - 20 July 2010 - New Scientist
    I noticed that no supporters of AGW Theory spoke out about this nonsense below when it was first highlighted. Given your recent conversion to describing greeny wacko's as absurd and ridiculous, perhaps you'd now care to direct some vitriole in a well-deserved direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I’m happy to help out where I can champ.



    I thought I had seen it all, but I wonder where the AGW Theory protagonists will draw the line when defending the indefensible.



    I have said before, children should not be the pawns in this sick game, but RUDD in his Lowy Institute speech and these greenies obviously disagree.







    According to Creative Director Fred Claviere, it was a hard choice to use an image this provocative.


    Maybe you could use scientific evidence instead you freaks!

  16. #3066
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Brrrr.

    That CO2 stuff is working just like in the computer models?

    "A brutal and historical cold snap has so far caused 80 deaths in South America, according to international news agencies. Temperatures have been much below normal for over a week in vast areas of the continent. In Chile, the Aysen region was affected early last week by the worst snowstorm in 30 years. The snow accumulation reached 5 feet in Balmaceda and the Army was called to rescue people trapped by the snow."




    Cold snap freezes South America – beaches whitened, some areas experience snow for the first time in living memory | Watts Up With That?

  17. #3067
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Anybody?


  18. #3068
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Consensus.

    True consensus at last!

    Joolia, just admit you're a sceptic and be done with it?

  19. #3069
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Here's why?

    Hey Joolia, why are you so scared to announce the Carbon Tax deal you did with the greens?

    "SOARING electricity and gas bills have emerged as the main concern among Australian consumers, as they battle shock heating costs.

    The size of utility bills has leapfrogged the state of the economy as the key worry for households, a report on consumer confidence reveals...


    ...The pain is set to cut even deeper in the next decade because of infrastructure upgrades, increasing demand, and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions...


    ...Welfare agencies warn that to cope, some struggling households are choosing between eating and heating..."


    Consumers quake at power bills | Herald Sun


    It certainly is a hard sell to convince voters you want to at least double their power bills to stop the planet overheating, when they currently can't afford their home heating bills cos it's freezing outside.


    Your fantastic cop out Joolia proves that reality trumps failed theories every day of the week.

  20. #3070
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.

    At last I feel a bit confident that common sense will prevail.

    Cheers Rod
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  21. #3071
    Soldiers Earned Your Right To Free Speech watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Avoca Victoria
    Age
    78
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Apart from the "Rudd talk-fest" similarity to what the PM proposes, I just notice a similarity to the type of "waddayarekun" proposals of the Hawke era. Just old fart recollection...not saying its good or bad.

    That'll be $1:75 please.........(2 cents with inflation).

  22. #3072
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    Reminds me of the GST, Keating wanted it but couldn't get it past the unions. Hewson tried to sell it as part of "fightback". Howard said "never ever" but did it anyway. We will end up with some form of scheme to limit emissions and the cost will be worn by the taxpayer. No one likes the idea but many recognise it as necessary.

    That'll be $1.75. please plus GST

  23. #3073
    1K Club Member jago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    ....
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.

    At last I feel a bit confident that common sense will prevail.

    Cheers Rod

    Don't say that Freud might have to do some renovating at the weekends

  24. #3074
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default It's on a knife edge (oops, sorry Kev).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.

    At last I feel a bit confident that common sense will prevail.

    Cheers Rod
    It is close to over, but I dread the thought of a Red government with a Green Senate.

    Gillard needs her mining tax to pay off her debts, and if the Greens will only pass this in a deal with a price on carbon, then two great big new taxes for all of us. The Reds will gleefully tax big business, and the Greens will gleefully tax carbon. What neither of these idiotologies have told Australians is that this money comes from us mugs.

    If the Greens don't get the balance of power, no probs.

    If the Reds don't win government, no probs.

    But if both of these happen, which is looking more likely every day, then hello double the big new taxes for everyone.

    What does the poor environment get? Ask China, India, the USA, etc etc.

    I might just have to volunteer for Joolia's Citizen's Committee for Climate to see if I can derail it. I will obviously have to swear allegiance to the cause to even stand a chance of getting on the committee. Do you reckon if I link this thread, she will put me in?

  25. #3075
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Drawers suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by jago View Post
    Don't say that Freud might have to do some renovating at the weekends
    The sad thing is I still am. Imagine when I finish my built in robes, I'll have so much more time to dedicate to destroying this myth.

    Won't be in the near future though, I seriously underestimated how long it takes to build drawers from scratch. I've put together flat pack ones, so figured it couldn't be much harder to custom cut all the bits myself...with a jigsaw.

    Still, a great lesson in patience (and stupidity). Five down, ten to go...

  26. #3076
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Where do I sign up?

    I might raise some of these issues once I am on the committee:

    I’d bet my $80 that drivers aren’t as green as Brumby pretends | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    But on Q&A tonight, Penny Wong said only "credible" scientists would be able to present information to the committee. Penny gets to decide who these will be. No guessing who will and won't be considered "Kruddible".

    Maybe they will also only randomly select from the "credible" citizens as well. Certainly rules me out.

  27. #3077
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    If the Reds don't win government, no probs.
    How Freudian, how McCarthyist

    Came out in the end, didn't it Doc?

    woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table.

    woodbe.

  28. #3078
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table.
    Me thinks that too.

    I suspect that a vote for the Greens with a preference to the 'Reds' will in effect be a de facto referendum on climate change action.

    It is interesting to note that when the 'reds' were doing badly in the opinion polls, the swing was to the greens rather than to the conservatives.

  29. #3079
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table.
    Whilst I'm with you on this prediction (red lower house, green BoP upper house).....I can't help wondering how sustainable this isn't.

    Green are bound to make life ideologically difficult for both red and blue...and Citizen Sheep will get 'frustrated' with the red government and take it out on green.

    Result? Next election.....Blue landslide. Same thing happened a few years back to beige (Democrat).

    However.....in the long run, the difference will be......zip. Grass will grow, sheep will frolic in the sun, ambivilous.....
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  30. #3080
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Result? Next election.....Blue landslide. Same thing happened a few years back to beige (Democrat).
    Could well happen - especially if Malcolm Turnbull comes out from the cold.

  31. #3081
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Gillard offers cash for old clunkers.

    Well Jools, have I got a deal for you!

    Gillard Offers Cash For Old Cars
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  32. #3082
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default A failure of leadership

    "Instead, the latest in our dumbing down of policy is Julia Gillard's plan to take $394 million out of programs to develop solar energy or carbon capture and storage so she can give $2000 each to people trading in pre-1995 cars for more fuel-efficient new ones. This, she says, will cut emissions by 1 million tonnes and save buyers $344 million in fuel costs.
    Two points of basic arithmetic. First, $394 million spent to save $344 million? That's $50 million wasted. Second, as prominent economist Warwick McKibbin points out, the scheme will cost us $394 per tonne of emissions saved. We've been talking about carbon prices of $20 or $30 a tonne. A solar power plant or carbon capture and storage scheme would cost a fraction of this price."

    Leaders Fail Australia On Immigration And Climate
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  33. #3083
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I might raise some of these issues once I am on the committee:

    I’d bet my $80 that drivers aren’t as green as Brumby pretends | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

    But on Q&A tonight, Penny Wong said only "credible" scientists would be able to present information to the committee. Penny gets to decide who these will be. No guessing who will and won't be considered "Kruddible".

    Maybe they will also only randomly select from the "credible" citizens as well. Certainly rules me out.
    Oh boy, she gets to choose only scientists "activists" that support the theory. What a whitewash.

    A bad idea just got worse.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  34. #3084
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Could well happen - especially if Malcolm Turnbull comes out from the cold.
    No chance of that.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  35. #3085
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default What a pretty rainbow.

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    How Freudian, how McCarthyist

    Came out in the end, didn't it Doc?

    woodbe predicts the 'Reds' will win with a Green balance of power in at least one of the houses. Should make it interesting watching our witless leaders trying to sweep the environment under the table.

    woodbe.
    It's been out before, and even longer than I've been using it champ. A very old joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    This Red ain't even pretending to be green on the outside.

    "GREEN groups keenly awaiting Julia Gillard's climate change policy are disappointed she mostly ignored the topic in a major agenda-setting speech today...

    ...“This extraordinary situation raises the disturbing prospect that she has no idea how or why she needs to shift the economy from a pollution-dependent footing to a resilient clean economy.”..."

    Gillard speech cops green flak | The Australian
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Apologies comrade,watermelon time.



    I’d make it anti-Obama if I was a US citizen, or anti-Brown if I was a UK citizen, but I’m an Aussie and Rudd wants to tax me for fresh air. So it is personal and it is anti-Rudd.
    Political response to climate change by Roy G. Biv

  36. #3086
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More pretty colours.

    More failed green theories on the outside leading to red balance sheets on the inside. (I just made that one up )

    But here's a slightly more coherent response:

    "ALL you need know about Julia Gillard’s “cash for clunkers” promise is that it’s another green scheme...

    ...Just why green schemes are so prone to flop or be fleeced is no coincidence. The word “green” - or “sustainable” - is like holy water. Sprinkle it on a sinner and even the greatest con man becomes redeemed...

    ...“The amount of carbon we anticipate saving through this measure by getting the 200,000 old cars off the road is one million tonnes.”

    And already we’re in la-la land. Even accepting the Government’s own rubbery figures (and its warming alarmism), this means Gillard will spend $400 on each tonne of C02 saved.

    Does this make any sense at all, when we can remove that same tonne of CO2 by planting trees for a mere $10? ...

    ...This means she is taking cash from things like solar panels, which can remove CO2 for about $250 a tonne, and splashing it instead to a used-car giveaway to do the same job for twice the price. Yes, it really is that mad...

    ...True enough, because that’s just how Gillard’s plan is defended even now by Climateworks, the activist outfit that proposed it to Labor. Sure, conceded Climateworks executive director Anna Skarbek, this way of removing CO2 is about four times more expensive than most alternatives.

    “You can cut carbon emissions by 25 per cent by doing things that cost not much more than $100 a tonne of carbon, but things like the cash-for-clunkers scheme can give you a role in signalling behaviour.”

    This is just for “signalling behaviour” then? So it’s the gesture that counts, and never mind if what’s actually achieved is insanely expensive and utterly futile..."

    Column - The real car wreck is Gillard’s bucks for bombs | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

  37. #3087
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Oops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    "Instead, the latest in our dumbing down of policy is Julia Gillard's plan to take $394 million out of programs to develop solar energy or carbon capture and storage so she can give $2000 each to people trading in pre-1995 cars for more fuel-efficient new ones. This, she says, will cut emissions by 1 million tonnes and save buyers $344 million in fuel costs.
    Two points of basic arithmetic. First, $394 million spent to save $344 million? That's $50 million wasted. Second, as prominent economist Warwick McKibbin points out, the scheme will cost us $394 per tonne of emissions saved. We've been talking about carbon prices of $20 or $30 a tonne. A solar power plant or carbon capture and storage scheme would cost a fraction of this price."

    Leaders Fail Australia On Immigration And Climate
    Sorry mate, pretty much replicated this above. But this level of hypocritical idiocy probably needed reiterating.

    Just to remind those still laughing, it's your money going overseas. Next time you see on your payslip or group certificate how much tax you are paying, remember this is how it is being spent.

  38. #3088
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Uh oh, accountability.

    Look out hypocrites, a call to put your money where your theory is.

    "THERE is, thank God, one promise in this dead-hearted election to lift the heart of every serious moralist. By “serious”, I don’t mean the kind of moralists who now plague us in their tens of thousands, demanding more from others than they give themselves.

    You know the sort. They’re the ones who go to free Make Poverty History concerts to demand taxpayers give to Africa what they themselves wouldn’t even fork out for the band. They’re the ones who paid nothing for the Live Earth concerts where they screamed for the rest of us to cut down on the petrol they wasted to get there and on the electricity the musos needed by the megawatt for their amps. These are the “awareness raisers” and finger-waggers whose fast track to sweatless goodness lies in denouncing everyone else as evil...

    ...From now on, Premier Anna Bligh sweetly suggested, such noble people could, if they wished, demonstrate the way to utopia by making the tiniest of sacrifices of their own. For just a $59 tax-deductible donation for tree-planting on top of their rego, motorists could offset their wicked car emissions for the whole year. And wait, there’s more: the Government would match their donation dollar for dollar. Waddaya say?

    Erm, not much. Of all the Queenslanders to renew their rego in the first six months of Bligh’s plan, just 230 took up her offer. Tells you a bit. Now Victorian Premier John Brumby, a teaser behind that grim face, is copying this same mischievous policy to stick it to the greens he secretly despises. Last week he said he’d give green drivers the option of paying a voluntary fee of up to $80 to offset their emissions - and bankroll his own green schemes. With a straight face, he suggested 20 per cent of drivers in this reddest of mainland states would cough up...


    ...You think 20 per cent of drivers really will dip into their own tight pockets? Ha. Even Virgin Blue, the most right-on of airlines, found fewer than 0.5 per cent of its passengers would pay a zac towards its own offset scheme...


    ...Should electorates that vote Green have their taps welded shut and power rationed?..."


    Column - The return of DIY moralism | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


    Luckily no true green supporters will see these comments as they have already disconnected from the grid and stopped using these filthy plastic polluting machines.

  39. #3089
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default I told you he was smart.

    Do you think it is ethical to spruik a renewable energy project as environmentally beneficial without disclosing your financial interest in it time after time?

    Well, Flim Flammery sees no problem with this, and has even been given $90 million of your money for his failed project.

    Federal government awards 90 million dollars in funding to Cooper Basin 25 MW geothermal demonstration project.

    And we give him awards for taking our money and wasting it.

    High profile Geodynamics shareholder and Monash University geology graduate, Tim Flannery, was named Australian of the Year on Thursday 25th January, obviously in recognition of his support of geothermal energy.

    And then he flies around the world being paid to spruik an environmentally friendly airline.

    Dear Tim, please see previous post.

  40. #3090
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well if that is all Jules can do and given where it is at in the states I would almost say the whole AGW thing is about to hit a brick wall.
    Why, has the science changed?
    "A report on the world's climate has confirmed that 2009 was one of Australia's hottest years on record and provides more evidence of global warming.
    Three hundred scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association compiled the report, which the association's data centre chief Deke Arndt says paints a compelling picture."
    (From: Climate check-up 'screams world is warming' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) )

    The report quoted in the ABC story can be found via NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

  41. #3091
    Vin
    Vin is offline
    Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    46

    Talking

    NOAA: last decade was warmest, global warming "undeniable" - Green House - USATODAY.com

    I just had to drop in and see how this debate was going now!!!!!!!!


  42. #3092
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    The section on Aust is here. Ch 7 p46
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/c...tes-lo-rez.pdf

  43. #3093
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Why, has the science changed?
    No.

    There is still no evidence proving AGW Theory.

  44. #3094
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Can everyone please get up to speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vin View Post
    I just had to drop in and see how this debate was going now!!!!!!!!

    Welcome back, long time no see.

    Just to get you back up to speed:


    • The debate is over!
    • Climate change is real (whatever the hell that means ).
    • Humans are causing it.
    • We don't need proof, some scientists believe it.
    • We need to silence sceptics who are all funded by big oil.
    • Increased taxes in Australia will save the whole planet.


    Ok, now that's out of the way, let's rock and roll.

  45. #3095
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Reality bites.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    The section on Aust is here. Ch 7 p46
    Er, the reality on Aust is here. See door, walk outside.

    Chrisp will tell you what a sweat he has built up sleeping outside these past few weeks.

    But hey, if the adjusted data says we are all scorching down here, I guess reality must be wrong?

  46. #3096
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Speaking of adjusted data.

    Here's a reminder of an oversimplified explanation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post

    Apologies for simplification (all made up), but hopefully the gist gets through.

    Let’s assume two random temperature measurements in one place over Time 1 and Time 2:

    Time 1 = Max 35
    Time 2 = Max 30

    Planet is cooling.

    But IPCC uses Max + Min / 2, so:

    Time 1 = Max 35 + Min 5 = 40/2 = 20
    Time 2 = Max 30 + Min 20 = 50/2 = 25

    Planet is warming.

    But IN REALITY, this happened, and the data looked like this:

    Time 1
    0000 - 20
    0200 - 15
    0400 - 5
    0600 - 15
    0800 - 20
    1000 - 30
    1200 - 35
    1400 - 35
    1600 - 35
    1800 - 25
    2000 - 20
    2200 - 20
    Avg - 23

    Time 2
    0000 - 20
    0200 - 20
    0400 - 20
    0600 - 22
    0800 - 22
    1000 - 24
    1200 - 30
    1400 - 26
    1600 - 24
    1800 - 22
    2000 - 22
    2200 - 20
    Avg - 23

    Planet is stable.

    These are just three of methods of calculation of possibly infinite methods of measuring temperature at just one location. If three different scientists get three different outcomes from exactly the same data set, none of them are frauds. They are using different assumptions. What is fraudulent is if an individual or individuals try to claim that their assumptions are the best or only one to use! Whether this is in Bernie’s Sales Brochures or IPCC Sales Brochures is no different.

    For a few more of the many assumptions:

    We then have to assume methods of combining all the locations.

    (If Northern Hemisphere temps go down, but Southern Hemisphere temps go up more, is the Planet warming on average? Then if we start cooling it, will the Northern Hemisphere be happy?)

    We then have to assume accuracy and calibration of measuring instruments.

    (Does an alcohol thermometer measurement taken in Alaska in the winter of 1915 compare to a digital thermometer reading at Kalgoorlie last week? Remember, we are talking about an average change of 0.7 degrees Celsius in over 100 years, IF we assume IPCC data “adjustments” have not distorted the data.)

    We then have to assume placement of these instruments (UHI?).

    (Can we compare a rooftop measurement in inner city Jakarta today (population 210 million) with a measurement from 1900 (population 40 million.))

    These are just some issues still in dispute in the scientific arena, just about accurately measuring the temperature, let alone whether it is going up or down, and then PROVING what is causing these changes.

    I hope for some healthy rebuttals defending “adjustments” made to the data in an attempt to correct for these inadequacies.
    The numbers never lie, but lot's of people lie about the numbers.

  47. #3097
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Way too much time on his hands.

    For a slightly more detailed look at just some aspects of this number juggling:

    kenskingdom


  48. #3098
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,389

    Default

    inner city Jakarta today (population 210 million)
    The inner city must be crowded. How did they find room for a weather station?

  49. #3099
    Vin
    Vin is offline
    Novice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Thanks for the welcome back!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    We don't need proof, some scientists believe it.

    I am unaware of any proof of anything, global warming is a theory!
    What sort of uneducated statement is this, Darwin’s theory of evolution is not proof, its just that a theory, but only flat earth folks believe differently!

  50. #3100
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Here's a reminder of an oversimplified explanation:



    The numbers never lie, but lot's of people lie about the numbers.
    Nice post that one!

    So true
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


Page 62 of 377 FirstFirst ... 12 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 112 162 ... 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
  •