For the Climate Change " debaters ".

[mylestom]

Double post my apologies

[PinHead]

Once again you have misunderstood what i have said. Obviously this is going nowhere. But in clearing up the "hogwash"

1. Original. http://lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1305 .

2. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html .

And just beacause people prefer cigarettes, alcohol, large TVs, boats and fishing gear instead of paying a new tax isn't surprising, is it ??? (That was also covered briefly in the Lowy paper. )

Good day to you sir.

so you reclon we should just pay a new tax? Wow..gotta love that attitude.

but let's look at you wonderful "papers':

the first one, the Lowy Institute..the Board of this group is:


Mr Frank Lowy AC the Westfield patriarch

Robert Ferguson

Professor Ross Garnaut AO. need anything more be said about this bloke

Ambassador Martin S. Indyk

Mr David H. Lowy AM son of Frank

Mr Peter S. Lowy another son of frank

Mr Steven M. Lowy AM yet another son

Mr Ian Macfarlane AC

Professor Robert O'Neill AO

Mr Mark Ryan

Professor Judith Sloan Westfields director

Mr Michael Thawley AO

they are well endowed with climatologists aren't they?

so we can dispel anything they have to say on the matter..it means as much as anythign I say..I have the same qualifications as them to speak on the climate.

Okay now..moving on..the next mob..a quick search found this:

"The lead author of a research paper causing an uproar in the climate science world appears to be a student. Six months ago, a person with this same name (and an identical e-mail address) uploaded a blog post during the December 2009 Copenhagen climate summit.

Describing himself as "a student at Stanford University" William R. L. Anderegg was witness to an event that will long be remembered for the number of limousines imported into Denmark so that the earth-friendly delegates might spurn free public transit.

Certain that the occasion was historic, this naively young mind writes:

To say there is diversity here would be a bland verbal tribute to the stunning myriad of life. To say this is a conference of complex and difficult issues would be capturing only a molecule of water in a turbulent river. To say that this entire thing is overwhelmingly chaotic would pay tribute merely to a single snowflake in a whiteout blizzard...
As a student studying climate change, I knew that this was an astounding opportunity to attend this conference. As a young person, I knew this was an opportunity to shape the world that our generation will inherit.

Could you run that by me, again? The lead author of a paper which purports to assess the achievements and credibility of hundreds of collective years of scientific expertise, that lead author is a climate change student at Standford University?
The same Stanford University at which paper co-author Stephen Schneider happens to teach?" from

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot....-anderegg.html

okay..we have a student..you bewdy.

next:
"email: jim.prall@utoronto.ca
website: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall
year of birth: 1958
citizenship: Canada
status: married EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
2001-present: Senior Systems Programmer, Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Toronto
1991-2001: Systems Programmer, Trigraph Inc./Gandalf Graphics Ltd., Toronto
1989-1991: Applications programmer, TransCanada PipeLines, Toronto
1986-1989: Technical support representative, Legalware, Inc., Toronto"

okay..we have a computer geek.

Next:
Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 – July 19, 2010)[1] was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University

Finally someone wit hsome qualifications but alas this gentleman will be taking no further part as he passed away in July 2010.

So Barney..we have a group of people..and some papers and you expect people to believe it when ONLY ONE of those people has real qualifications in the field.

Based on this I might write a paper on brain surgery and all those surgeons should follow it.

So Barney, I will glaldy continue with my cigarettes, alcohol, large TVs, boats and fishing gear ands they can shove their tax where the sun does nto shine.

When someone can prove conclusively that this so called global warming is man made I will change my tune..until then it just appears that some folk have found a way to make some big money and scare a lot of people.

BUT Barney..if this is man made what are YOUR solutions..no point sitting back and firing bullets if you don't have a solution to your perceived problem.

Dazzle us with your scientific brilliance..and any solution should not be a financial burden on the general populace.

[PinHead]

deleted post..LOL

[finga]

They have free public transport in Denmark??

Hooly dooly.

[Lucky_Phill]

Yes, but they also have a " PTT " built into their taxation system. that is, everyone pays for a " Public Transport Tariff ". Bit like Medicare.

Now on TV tonight I see Michael Caton and Kate Blanchett espousing the virtues of slugging the big polluters. These ads are funded by " The Greens and Unions ".

I have written to my Federal member, which just happens to be Craig Emerson and asked specifically to explain the reasons a carbon tax is needed to combat " apparent " carbon pollution. I hope to receive some " spin " soon.



LP>
.
.
.
.
.

[Steeler]

If dealing with so called climate change came without a cost would we have more climate change believers.

Seems everytime we wish to knock the climate change brigade we cite the cost of it rather than refuting the science.

So are we talking through our hip pockets or our genuine disbelief in its happening.

[PinHead]

If dealing with so called climate change came without a cost would we have more climate change believers.

Seems everytime we wish to knock the climate change brigade we cite the cost of it rather than refuting the science.

So are we talking through our hip pockets or our genuine disbelief in its happening.

I have not believed it long before a tax was mooted. I do not believe there is definitive proof to make radical changes to anything and I also am not a believer in the precautionary principle..that is a joke.

To those that believe we need a carbon tax..I would love an answer to the following question:

Prior to the last election Gillard and Swan stated there would not be a carbon tax under their Govt. Obviously they believed there was no need for one. BUT NOW..we need one. So what has changed to alter the ALP's way of thinking? I have not seen any issues mentioned that would send them to this conclusion in such a short time. The only reason I can think of is to appease The Greens who take over power in the Senate on July 1. Now that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming just political bedfellows.

[Lucky_Phill]

here we go.

more BS.

The brilliant new carbon tax promotion funded by various government-friendly climate groups features an ominous coal-fired power station blasting carbon into the sky. One or two small problems: the power station depicted is not in Australia. It’s Battersea Power Station in London, and it closed down nearly 30 years ago:

Have I told anyone lately, I HATE THE ALP and their backdoor dealing buddies. ??????????????????????????????????????





LP.
.
.
.
.

[Mike Delisser]

Prior to the last election Gillard and Swan stated there would not be a carbon tax under their Govt. Obviously they believed there was no need for one. BUT NOW..we need one. So what has changed to alter the ALP's way of thinking? I have not seen any issues mentioned that would send them to this conclusion in such a short time. The only reason I can think of is to appease The Greens who take over power in the Senate on July 1. Now that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming just political bedfellows.

Good point Greg, that's exactly what Gillard did say.
Though I don't think in the lead up to the last Fed election she/they realy believed there was no need for one, I think they knew that they'd be out on their arse if they proceeded. I recon we won't see it this term anyway, they will try to fight the next election on climate change action or inaction (trying to isolate Abbott while clawing back what they lost to the Greens in the last election)

Phil, I guess that's what happens when a graphic designer at the advertising agency just Googles images for "POWER STATION", Battersea is about the 4th to come up. I suspect the wind farm and the sun in the background are also representative cardboard cut outs and not real either, the bastards!

Seriously though I've followed politics for a long time and I've never seen one single issue leave such a mark on the political scene. 1st it cost Turnbul his leadership, then it cost Rudd his Prime Ministership (along with the RSPT), it caused Wong to be moved and now it's shaping as Abbott's main wedge against Gillard and will prob win him an election.

Interesting to note that this all happened because the Greens knocked back Rudd's ETS in 2009 (going for 25 to 40% greenhouse reduction by 2020 instead of the ALP's 25% by 2020). So if it wasn't for the Greens siding with the Coalition in the Senate, Australia would have an ETS/Carbon Tax today. Strange the way things work out isn't it!

Cheers
MD

[barney11]

hmmm, i was expecting a reply about how the questions in the survey were biased, the sample size of 1001 was too small etc etc, you realise it was a phone poll right ?? ( similar to that by Morgan http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics...-and-the-cprs/ ) which findings were similar. I tried to use what i could free on the net, to avoid others not being able to access them, hence the crikey link lol.

And secondly Schneider, you realise that he was the dude in the insight episode ?? Go back to the first post, he contributed to that paper with the student and you seems to like Schneider "Finally someone wit hsome qualifications" sooooooo.
If you read that link they mentioned why they undertook that particular research because "expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC". that was more my point and i just chucked it in cause he co-authored it, along with the students you mention. I have not looked into it anymore then that.

anywhoo, nice post/thread.

[Defore]

Good day to you sir.

Barney you have been watching way too much Willy Wonka

[Symetre]

Everybody is indeed entitled to an opinion, however, it is the incongruous arguments against climate science that tend to come from those with very little scientific education. I mean by no means to belittle anyone's intelligence but we can't all be an expert at everything.
What would a bricklayer think if a scientist walked on site and told him how to lay bricks?

I agree with Barney11. If you believe the science that shows the globe is warming due to human activity, and are opposed to a carbon price for the sole reason that it will cost you a little cash then you have questionable morals. If people think we can reduce our emissions without it costing us anything they are kidding themselves.
We all enjoy some fantastic luxuries in life and should be prepared to sacrifice a small portion of those luxuries. For those who are unfortunate to not enjoy luxuries, they would be compensated by tax offsets for low income earners.
One argument that really rubs me is the "Australia emits just 1.43% of global emissions". Yes this is true but per capita, Australia has the HIGHEST CO2 emissions (20.58 TONNES C02 per person per year). This is rather alarming.

For those who still argue the science (and there are very few scientists who do so) there is most probably no hope. They are doomed to a closed mind that only time will prove wrong. The evidence of human impact is building and if nothing is done our grandchildren will have a miserable planet to live on.
My grandfather told me stories of fishing for whiting when he was a kid. They would throw out bread on a hook in the passage and catch several hundred a day. They would take 10 home and bury the rest. BURY 200 whiting a day! That may seem absurd now but was common practice 75 years ago.
Do we wish to continue with this archaic way of thinking in which we plunder the earth with no consequence? I certainly do not.

[Captain Incredible]

I am onside with Pinhead on this one. (If) "are opposed to a carbon price for the sole reason that it will cost you a little cash then you have questionable morals." Symetre, the carbon tax will be spent X% bailing out the poor who won't be able to afford electricity and the other X% to the Government to "develop innovative carbon neutral technology". This Gillard Government couldn't even insulate home rooves without killing people and generally stuffing up. And you want to give them billions of dollars more?
Not enough electricity to light, heat or cool your house except for the rich, running a boat offshore would become too expensive for most, running a car prohibitive and nothing to show for it except billions wasted by being thrown at the unemployed and climate believing scientists?

If carbon was a real issue, especially the high per capita emissions, why hasn't Gillard placed a moratorium on immigration and placed a bill before Parliament to limit births in Australia to one per family for the next 50 years? And also booting out everyone living in Australia on a visa because their emissions will drop once they are back in their homelands. To carry the argument to the extreme, also legalise euthanasia, increase the cost of all medical procedures and cease humanitarian aid to all foreign countries. That should reduce the head count even more.

The corollary (that's a big word) of reducing per capita emissions is to actually reduce the number of heads. Stops clearing of koala habitat for new homes as well eliminating the need for more dams, power stations and other infrastructure like roads, etc- the Greens will love it.
The REAL result of a carbon tax is that the Government gets more money to spend. And spend badly. The solutions which really work will not be employed because they are not revenue raising.

And yes, Grandpa probably did a lot of silly things. But when Australia's population was five million, you could afford a bit of silliness. What is it gunna look like with 35-40 million Australians without enough electricity?

A "little cash" out of my pocket will not make it better.

[PinHead]

Everybody is indeed entitled to an opinion, however, it is the incongruous arguments against climate science that tend to come from those with very little scientific education. I mean by no means to belittle anyone's intelligence but we can't all be an expert at everything.
What would a bricklayer think if a scientist walked on site and told him how to lay bricks?

I agree with Barney11. If you believe the science that shows the globe is warming due to human activity, and are opposed to a carbon price for the sole reason that it will cost you a little cash then you have questionable morals. If people think we can reduce our emissions without it costing us anything they are kidding themselves.
We all enjoy some fantastic luxuries in life and should be prepared to sacrifice a small portion of those luxuries. For those who are unfortunate to not enjoy luxuries, they would be compensated by tax offsets for low income earners.
One argument that really rubs me is the "Australia emits just 1.43% of global emissions". Yes this is true but per capita, Australia has the HIGHEST CO2 emissions (20.58 TONNES C02 per person per year). This is rather alarming.

For those who still argue the science (and there are very few scientists who do so) there is most probably no hope. They are doomed to a closed mind that only time will prove wrong. The evidence of human impact is building and if nothing is done our grandchildren will have a miserable planet to live on.
My grandfather told me stories of fishing for whiting when he was a kid. They would throw out bread on a hook in the passage and catch several hundred a day. They would take 10 home and bury the rest. BURY 200 whiting a day! That may seem absurd now but was common practice 75 years ago.
Do we wish to continue with this archaic way of thinking in which we plunder the earth with no consequence? I certainly do not.

I can assure you i don believe everything anyone tells me based on their field of endeavour, if I feel the need to seek a second or third opinion I will.


got some facts on that one >

a 2 second search shows these blokes don't agree..and there must be plenty more..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming


I get it now..I work my butt off to buy the things I have and now have to pay more to have them so someone else who does not earn much gets some money from me. Awesome..I know what that sounds like to me.

Perhaps I should just go on the dole and let others pay me.

How about we look at some REAL emissions to start with..how about run off into the waterways..you know those nice waterfront houses with the manicured lawns..I wonder what chemicals are used on them. How about the farming industry look at what chemicals they put into the ground .How about we look at the massive foreshore developments that have decmiated the mangroves...and on and on we could go but no..all the ills of the World are caused by that nasty item CO2..and let's get the tax name correct..it is not a carbon tax..it is a CO2 tax..the very thing we exhale every breath. How about we look at stopping forest destruction..tress take in all that CO2. People who believe that CO2 is the entire problem (if there is one) cannot see the forest for the trees.

I have seen this scare mongering before..Y2K..hole in the ozone layer (and we all paid dearly for that one and still do), they just hid that one from the general public. The oil crisis etc etc etc Some people makes fortunes from these things whilst the poor average guy pays for it. Then of course there is J section of the BCA..another joke..that adds a considerable amount to the cost of buildings and for what ?

For every notion put forward on climate change there have been other persons who say it is incorrect..sorry but whilst there is so much conjecture I am not jumping on the bandwagon.

[Symetre]

CI, Reducing the number of heads would effectively increase the emissions per capita not as you say reduce it.
I believe the Government is not hugely responsible for the insulation but was treated rather unfavorably by the media. Such works require project management. The government tenders the job out to the industry and the project management companies in Australia take a huge pay cut for not doing a good job. Better safety measures were required but also common sense from installers. Who would nail insulation into a roof where live wires are laying without turning off the power? That is however another debate.

The carbon tax is not designed primarily to raise revenue. It is to force industries to develop and invest in cleaner energy.