Carbon Tax

[777]

Of course it's idiotic. That's why the doomsters at Hadley CRU were insignificant...

Clearly you get your knowledge from a limited number of highly opinionated but light on evidence news sources so let me give you a very simple example. Have you ever heard the claim that Tim Flannery "

predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... "? I'm sure you have. You've probably even repeated it or at least nodded enthusiastically at what an idiot Flannery was to make such a point.

Have you ever bothered to read the actual interview where he allegedly said that? It's right here if you can bothered: Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp. Anyone with high school or better comprehension skills will very quickly realise that 1. He never said anything about dams never filling again. 2. His point (in the fourth para) wasn't that "dams will never fill again" but that any given level of rainfall that less water will make it through to dams because heat causes a higher degree of evaporation.
​

Here's the point though: If a bufoon like Andrew Bolt says "the world is getting colder not warmer" there is no actual system to objectively test that claim. If a scientist makes a prediction he or she is expected to put forwarded a verifiable hypothesis and should another scientist produce evidence that disproves the hypothesis it will very quickly be debunked.

Science is a self correcting system. Blowhard opionating is not. Again, my money is on science.

 

[777]

"Peer Review"

AKA: Don't interfere with our [-] gravy train [/-] funding by publishing contradictory research results - otherwise you will be ostracised as a "sceptic" and your fiduciary resource will become problematic.

Pretty much completely wrong. All the great scientists in prestige, wealth and reputation of the last few hundred years are those who overturned a conventional wisdom and not those who simply repeated one. You make your name by challenging not affirming received wisdom.

 

[777]

Like everything in life - there are differing views.

A casual search through any source will provide eminent views on either side!

A casual search will do that but that's the point of the scientific method. It is not a head count of opinions it is a process of gathering evidence, putting forward arguments based on that evidence and demolishing arguments where that evidence does not stand up. Science does that.

Steven Hawking - a great scientist - was in the media a couple of weeks ago admitting he had been wrong about the Higgs Boson. He had argued that it would not be discovered and when the evidence came in he admitted his hypothosis was wrong and that he had lost a bet as a result of it. When was the last time an Andrew Bolt or the like did the same? When evidence proves them wrong they simply change the terms of the argument and act like they've been right all along.

 

[amaroo]

A casual search will do that but that's the point of the scientific method. It is not a head count of opinions it is a process of gathering evidence, putting forward arguments based on that evidence and demolishing arguments where that evidence does not stand up. Science does that.

Steven Hawking - a great scientist - was in the media a couple of weeks ago admitting he had been wrong about the Higgs Boson. He had argued that it would not be discovered and when the evidence came in he admitted his hypothosis was wrong and that he had lost a bet as a result of it. When was the last time an Andrew Bolt or the like did the same? When evidence proves them wrong they simply change the terms of the argument and act like they've been right all along.

You appear to show all the characteristic of a shock jock.........

 

[medhead]

The merge between "scientists" and "nutters" has been occurring for many years. It seems to be quite simple to put phoney scientific "proof" forward, and get enough "nutter" scientists to back your claims, hence getting published, hence getting famous for false science.

Yep see this with radiation effects. So called scientists forming their own committee on the effects of radiation and then publishing stuff that is complete cough. Very much like what Lord Monckton is all about.

Like everything in life - there are differing views.

A casual search through any source will provide eminent views on either side!

Shock jocks don't come into it! The most shocking thing about the whole thing is the absolute minimal affect it will have on whatever the real issue is!

The major problem with what your saying three fold. 1) Calling yourself a lord does not make you an eminent scientist. 2) It is the shock jocks that are saying there will be minimal effect, without bothering with things like scientific evidence. 3) It is the shock jocks that are influencing public opinion against the the carbon tax and the government. Simply repeating what Bolt et al told you is meaningless.

So the shock jocks do very much come into it. Simply parroting the shock jock line is not science. Do you see that great ABC show that took Nick Minchin and some other person around the world to investigate the claims of both sides. It certainly debunked cornerstone views of the so called eminent scientists.

 

[777]

You appear to show all the characteristic of a shock jock.........

I am genuinely open to being convinced ... i'm also just killing time waiting for someone to email me back something so i can actually go to bed

But seriously, take the time to understand how science works and why it has served us very well in terms improving quality of life and getting us out of the dark ages. It works because it is based on clear processes that are based on evidence. Those processes have been attacked by everyone from people who reckon leaches cure ailments, to those who claim the sun goes round the earth, to those who claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer and more recently those who claim that the earth isn't warming. In every single case a powerful vested interest (be it the Church or the fossil fuel industry or whatever) with a lot at stake have attempted to discredit science itself. Science always wins because it is rigorous, thorough and evidence based and i see no reason whatsoever why this latest mob of well funded nutters will be any different.

 

[serfty]

Pretty much completely wrong. All the great scientists in prestige, wealth and reputation of the last few hundred years are those who overturned a conventional wisdom and not those who simply repeated one. You make your name by challenging not affirming received wisdom.

Hmmm ... that response seems so , so - like a standard reply #53b (or something like that) from a [-]Global Warming[/-] Climate Change proponent manual ...

ngghhh!

... I really do try to avoid posting here ...

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

 

[amaroo]

Clearly you get your knowledge from a limited number of highly opinionated but light on evidence news sources so let me give you a very simple example. Have you ever heard the claim that Tim Flannery "

predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... "? I'm sure you have. You've probably even repeated it or at least nodded enthusiastically at what an idiot Flannery was to make such a point.

Have you ever bothered to read the actual interview where he allegedly said that? It's right here if you can bothered: Landline - 11/02/2007: Interview with Professor Tim Flannery . Australian Broadcasting Corp. Anyone with high school or better comprehension skills will very quickly realise that 1. He never said anything about dams never filling again. 2. His point (in the fourth para) wasn't that "dams will never fill again" but that any given level of rainfall that less water will make it through to dams because heat causes a higher degree of evaporation.
​

Here's the point though: If a bufoon like Andrew Bolt says "the world is getting colder not warmer" there is no actual system to objectively test that claim. If a scientist makes a prediction he or she is expected to put forwarded a verifiable hypothesis and should another scientist produce evidence that disproves the hypothesis it will very quickly be debunked.

Science is a self correcting system. Blowhard opionating is not. Again, my money is on science.

Trouble is people will take what you say on face value:-

Climate and floods: Flannery is no expert, but neither are the experts

For every scientist lined up on one side - there is another on the other....to dismiss this, is just silly!

The whole ugly mess could have been avoided if she didn't mutter these words - Julia Gillard's No Carbon Tax Election Promise - YouTube

However, she did & the rest is going to be history!

I am genuinely open to being convinced ... i'm also just killing time waiting for someone to email me back something so i can actually go to bed

But seriously, take the time to understand how science works and why it has served us very well in terms improving quality of life and getting us out of the dark ages. It works because it is based on clear processes that are based on evidence. Those processes have been attacked by everyone from people who reckon leaches cure ailments, to those who claim the sun goes round the earth, to those who claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer and more recently those who claim that the earth isn't warming. In every single case a powerful vested interest (be it the Church or the fossil fuel industry or whatever) with a lot at stake have attempted to discredit science itself. Science always wins because it is rigorous, thorough and evidence based and i see no reason whatsoever why this latest mob of well funded nutters will be any different.

I believe, that you believe!

 

[Deleted member]

I am not a sceptic, I think the planet has and will continue to cool and warm,
I just don't know that the man made effect is as great as some wold have us believe .
Having said that, pollution in any form is not good for us. So while I believe the carbon tax is just that....a tax, I am
In favour of cleaning up our act , and stopping treating our planet like a toilet

 

[drron]

In science to say something is proved beyond doubt is not correct.You put forward a theory then test it with hypotheses.Now in the 2007 IPCC report the number one hypothesis was that record cold events would be less likely.That has not occurred.Also when you go back in time there is poor correlation linking atmospheric Co2 levels with temperature as the Number 1 factor.The Earth has continuously warmed and cooled.Climate change is a fact.What has still not been proven to my satisfaction is that the warming from the 1970s to early 2000s is predominantly due to carbon emissions.

 

[RAM]

I am genuinely open to being convinced ... i'm also just killing time waiting for someone to email me back something so i can actually go to bed

But seriously, take the time to understand how science works and why it has served us very well in terms improving quality of life and getting us out of the dark ages. It works because it is based on clear processes that are based on evidence. Those processes have been attacked by everyone from people who reckon leaches cure ailments, to those who claim the sun goes round the earth, to those who claim that smoking doesn't cause cancer and more recently those who claim that the earth isn't warming. In every single case a powerful vested interest (be it the Church or the fossil fuel industry or whatever) with a lot at stake have attempted to discredit science itself. Science always wins because it is rigorous, thorough and evidence based and i see no reason whatsoever why this latest mob of well funded nutters will be any different.

It is always good to see how science works. Do you remember the "fears" of the scientific community in the 1970s?

We were going to have an Ice Age commencing around 2000-2010.

But today, there is an annual global spend of over $75bn on global warming, that's right name change, climate change. Might does seem right after a while.

Since the early 2000s every City/County Council in the UK has had a "climate change" officer for example. Funding for scientific research involving climate change is now the largest source of all scientific research studies. No wonder the voice saying the emperor has no clothes is getting drowned out - self-interest wins.

Remember the "wisdom" that asbestos was a wonder substance, thalidomide was a boon for pregnant women suffering from morning sickness, agent orange was safe and effective (one out of two ain't bad), no meaningful radiation would leak from Fukushima as the Japanese had it all under control and no deaths would be caused (latest scientific figures suggest >1,000).

Scientific evidence is correct until it isn't.

[h=2]10m years ago there was less CO2 - but the Earth was WARMER -Warmth and carbon 'decoupled': 'A surprising finding'[/h]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11200.html - some light reading for you.

By the way, the bulk of signatories of IPCC are not scientists, they are representatives from NGOs and Govt bureaucrats. If you do a search on the NY Times, IPCC, law suit lead author - you should get the article where one of the original lead authors had to file a law suit to get his name deleted from the IPCC report as they deleted his entire contribution from the final draft delivered by the lead author panel to the UN as it said there was no evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

When he asked why it was deleted the UN bureaucrat in charge stated because (named) NGOs demanded it.

This other recent "scientific peer reviewed article" may help you sleep.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html

[h=1]An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland[/h]
The images reveal a regional response to external forcing regardless of glacier type, terminal environment and size. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.

... and why is this important - well glaciers on the land that melt raise sea levels by a factor more than melting marine glaciers.

Good night!

 

[Moody]

It is always good to see how science works. Do you remember the "fears" of the scientific community in the 1970s?

We were going to have an Ice Age commencing around 2000-2010.

Really? I was pretty young in the 70's but I don't remember that. Could you provide some links or references?

But today, there is an annual global spend of over $75bn on global warming, that's right name change, climate change. Might does seem right after a while.

Wrong. The annual spend on global warming is in the trillions. Oh - do you mean the global spend on mitigating anthropogenic climate change (that's right - more name changes [redacted].)

Since the early 2000s every City/County Council in the UK has had a "climate change" officer for example. Funding for scientific research involving climate change is now the largest source of all scientific research studies. No wonder the voice saying the emperor has no clothes is getting drowned out - self-interest wins.

I have no way of knowing if this is true and frankly I don't care. Could you name a more important area of scientific research?

Remember the "wisdom" that asbestos was a wonder substance, thalidomide was a boon for pregnant women suffering from morning sickness, agent orange was safe and effective (one out of two ain't bad), no meaningful radiation would leak from Fukushima as the Japanese had it all under control and no deaths would be caused (latest scientific figures suggest >1,000).

Wisdom from mining companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the US and Japanese governments? How gullible are you?!?

Scientific evidence is correct until it isn't.

10m years ago there was less CO2 - but the Earth was WARMER -Warmth and carbon 'decoupled': 'A surprising finding'

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11200.html - some light reading for you.

It was light reading (I read the summary because I wasn't going to pay 22 quid for the full article - did you?). Anyway - the gist of the precis was that oceanic effects worked to keep the earth warm whilst CO2 levels were low. Which proves what exactly???

By the way, the bulk of signatories of IPCC are not scientists, they are representatives from NGOs and Govt bureaucrats. If you do a search on the NY Times, IPCC, law suit lead author - you should get the article where one of the original lead authors had to file a law suit to get his name deleted from the IPCC report as they deleted his entire contribution from the final draft delivered by the lead author panel to the UN as it said there was no evidence of anthropogenic climate change.

When he asked why it was deleted the UN bureaucrat in charge stated because (named) NGOs demanded it.

Did they demand it because it failed scientific rigour or because they are part of a global conspiracy? Serious question.

This other recent "scientific peer reviewed article" may help you sleep.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1481.html

An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland


The images reveal a regional response to external forcing regardless of glacier type, terminal environment and size. Furthermore, the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming.

... and why is this important - well glaciers on the land that melt raise sea levels by a factor more than melting marine glaciers.

Good night!

Glaciers are slow beasts that advance and retreat and groan whilst they are doing it. But their impact on sea levels compared to the ice caps is what exactly? Serious question.

 

[drron]

Yes Global Cooling was a topic in the 1960s actually though the IPCC has done a pretty good job at cleansing the subject if you do a Google Search.
I was educated at Sydney University in the 1960s.One of the proponents of Global cooling was Professor Charles Birch-professor of Biology-his interest being the effects of climate on the populations and distribution of animals.I went to several of his talks on the subject.I was the President of the SU Conservation society in 1969 so took a keen interest in such matters.This subject was the reason there was a great push to remove particulate and sulphur gases from the atmosphere.So maybe they were right after all-since this happened it has warmed.

As to glaciers-in the 1790s Vancouver mapped the Inside Passage.Glacier Bay did not exist-it was still a glacier.In the 1860s John Muir-a noted conservationist was able to canoe into Glacier Bay many miles-the number 60 comes to mind-but it is a few years since I last read his journal.So significant glacial retreat had occurred before the increase in Co2 levels.

Then to ice caps.the greatest by far is Antarctica.Although that area below South America is retreating there is considerable evidence that the Eastern Antarctic region,which is larger than the west,is at least stable if not increasing.Certainly in 2011 when we cruised to Mawson's hut we could not do all that Mawson's party had done 99 years before because of the large amounts of sea ice.Sure just an observation but still relevant.

 

[777]

It is always good to see how science works. Do you remember the "fears" of the scientific community in the 1970s?

We were going to have an Ice Age commencing around 2000-2010.

And with that i pretty much rest my case. Science is a self correcting mechanism. A scientist or scientists will put forward a hypothesis based on available evidence and then it will be tested by other scientists. Should the hypothisis stand up to a weight of evidence it will continue as a working theory and if it doesn't it will be replaced by more up-to-date knowledge. So, what happened to the Ice Age theory? It was challenged and did not stand up to weight of evidence and was therefore displaced.

The only problem with this is that the case for global warming keeps getting stronger not weaker. Despite the fact that they earth is a complex system so variability in local weather patterns can be inconistent over the short run, over the long run the pattern is very, very, very clear.

Those of you who argue that climate changes isn't real i'd simply argue that you do this: put forward a single, testable hypothesis that explains observed changes in the earths climate. As far as i can tell no one is. Climate "skeptics" are a lose coalition of highly motivated people running what is essentially a collection of internally incoherent and inconsistent arguments ("the world has not warmed", "The world was warming but it stopped", "the world is cooling", "the world is warming but we are not responsible", "the world is warming but it is not a problem", etc) which allows them to occupy so many positions simultaneously that the response is fundamentally incoherent.

I'm happy to take the time to discuss in good faith with anyone who argues for any one of those positions but i find as soon as you do in most cases they simply switch to a different argument half way through. Science simply does not have this luxury - it must be consistent or it must be revised.

 

[777]

In science to say something is proved beyond doubt is not correct.You put forward a theory then test it with hypotheses.Now in the 2007 IPCC report the number one hypothesis was that record cold events would be less likely.That has not occurred.Also when you go back in time there is poor correlation linking atmospheric Co2 levels with temperature as the Number 1 factor.The Earth has continuously warmed and cooled.Climate change is a fact.What has still not been proven to my satisfaction is that the warming from the 1970s to early 2000s is predominantly due to carbon emissions.

You've made two basic claims there that i'd be happy to look at if you can provide the evidence. One was that the 2007 IPCC report the number one hypothesis was that record cold events would be less likely and, by implication, you are arguing that they haven't occurred less in the period since 2007. I don't suppose you could you provide a link to the evidence for both?

 

[medhead]

Having said that, pollution in any form is not good for us. So while I believe the carbon tax is just that....a tax, I am
In favour of cleaning up our act , and stopping treating our planet like a toilet

This is the bottom line and it is totally independent of global warming/climate change or whatever. Instead of wasting words over "she lied", people could focus on reducing pollution.


Sent from the Throne

 

[SeatBackForward]

This is the bottom line and it is totally independent of global warming/climate change or whatever. Instead of wasting words over "she lied", people could focus on reducing pollution.


Sent from the Throne

Agreed. "Carbon tax" is stupid misnomer (but of course makes it simple). Its not purely about Carbon. Its about any sort of pollutant/emission. Carbon tonnes is simply a common denominatory equivalent that is used. C02e is the medium for exchange, much like we use dollars. A much better name would be a Pollution Cost.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Garnaut Climate Change Review

Summary of Garnaut Review 2011 | Garnaut Climate Change Review

Part 6

A carbon price of $26 will raise approximately $11.5 billion in the first year (2012-2013).

Can someone please point me in the right direction, I can't see ~$11 billion dollars worth of green/solar/geothermal/renewable projects in the pipeline anywhere, that will lesson our use of coal/reduce our CO2.

 

[drron]

You've made two basic claims there that i'd be happy to look at if you can provide the evidence. One was that the 2007 IPCC report the number one hypothesis was that record cold events would be less likely and, by implication, you are arguing that they haven't occurred less in the period since 2007. I don't suppose you could you provide a link to the evidence for both?

I have already quoted the IPPC 2007 report in this thread and yes I have read the report.
I guess you dont read the papers.How many died in Europe this last winter because of record low temperatures?Have you forgotten Cancun and the UN Climate Change conference-went for 5 days and each day was a record low for that particular day.

 

[docjames]

Yes interesting isn't it.I met a former senior Victorian politician in the West Indies in 2007 who I had gone to school with.I asked "so you are here for the World Cup?"
"Oh no.I am here fore the Climate Conference as I work for the South Australian premier on his Climate Change committee"
I did resist the urge to say-Pull the other one.

/sarcasm/

As with medical conferences , government "conferences" are known for being held in terrible locations......