What Carbon

[JohnK]

Still cannot understand why some people love to make this discussion political.

 

[PLANT]

Cause it's all tax based?

 

[PLANT]

Climate change is an environmental tax

 

[SeatBackForward]

Climate change is an environmental tax

No, its a penalty.

 

[medhead]

Still cannot understand why some people love to make this discussion political.

If you paid attention to Australian politics you would understand. Maybe you missed it but a political campaign over this very question destroyed a government.

Then again I have to wonder why you even mention this because party based politics have not been recently mentioned in this thread.

Of course, all human activity involves politics, perhaps not understanding that is why life is difficult.

 

[medhead]

No, its a penalty.

No, it's a price signal. Like a $7 co payment.

 

[drron]

Oh medhead back to putting up straw men again.Physicists do really understand the scientific method.Gives them the ability to see through some of the bs.And there are physicists involved in climate research.
you obviously didn't read the links.the doubts about the 97% figure are very real.here's another short one for you-
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

Again if you come up against the paywall just google the headline.
Then there is this survey from the American Meteorological Society-
http://www.climatechangecommunicati...S_CICCC_Survey_Preliminary_Findings-Final.pdf

So while a majority believe that human factors are the major reason for climate change it is nowhere near 97%.

 

[medhead]

Oh medhead back to putting up straw men again.Physicists do really understand the scientific method.Gives them the ability to see through some of the bs.And there are physicists involved in climate research.
you obviously didn't read the links.the doubts about the 97% figure are very real.here's another short one for you-
Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ

Again if you come up against the paywall just google the headline.
Then there is this survey from the American Meteorological Society-
http://www.climatechangecommunicati...S_CICCC_Survey_Preliminary_Findings-Final.pdf

So while a majority believe that human factors are the major reason for climate change it is nowhere near 97%.

You obviously didn't read the picture you posted. That clearly made statements about the available evidence, not just the scientific method. To claim there is not evidence, as the physicist stated, you would have to actually have studied in the area. Between doing his phd and working at his physics, when did that person study about climate change? Sorry it is not a strawman argument at all. That declaration requires actually knowing about more than the scientific method. The only strawman is yours.

As for the other links I've judged that by your obviously false claim that 97% of experts believed the world was flat in Columbus' time. That utter load of cough tells me all I need to know about the quality of your information.

I don't even need to get into the utter hypocrisy of making up numbers as part of you accusation of others making up numbers. It makes you position untenable along with those links.

 

[drron]

So no point arguing medhead seeing you don't even read the evidence.
I presume by the physicist you were referring to the petition.Then read the qualifications of those that signed and also note the AMS survey.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment. 2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

 

[JohnK]

Then again I have to wonder why you even mention this because party based politics have not been recently mentioned in this thread.

Really? The same people that were spamming the Political thread and forced it's closure are very vocal about climate change in this thread.

Just putting 2 and 2 together and realising if you are a hard core Labour supporter you are for a carbon tax. No? Just a coincidence?

 

[medhead]

So no point arguing medhead seeing you don't even read the evidence.
I presume by the physicist you were referring to the petition.Then read the qualifications of those that signed and also note the AMS survey.

I judge the so called evidence by the quality of your opening line. If that is wrong then everything else must be wrong.

 

[medhead]

Really? The same people that were spamming the Political thread and forced it's closure are very vocal about climate change in this thread.

Just putting 2 and 2 together and realising if you are a hard core Labour supporter you are for a carbon tax. No? Just a coincidence?

Spamming really? So people can't have an opinion it seems. People can't be passionate about a topic without you deeming it to be spam. How insulting.

Seem you are the only one allowed an opinion around here. Anyone else with an opinion is subjected to personal abuse such as your post. I'm allowed an opinion, and no one is forcing you to read or comment.

As for that other thread, no doubt you missed the little gang who were extremely vocal in attacking people who dared express an opinion.

As for climate change the carbon tax worked at reducing pollution as has been demonstrated. It provided an effective price signal for pollution. It is being replaced by the Ros Kelly whiteboard, where one political party will pick the winners who will be gifted taxpayer money. That is a failure of an economic policy and I'm yet to see anyone support it.

 

[james4321]

Just putting 2 and 2 together and realising if you are a hard core Labour supporter you are for a carbon tax. No? Just a coincidence?

No. If you care about your granchildren's future then you are for an effective method of reducing carbon emissions and adverse climate change. But it does seem that if you are a hard core Lib supporter then you subscribe to Tony's mantra that it is all cough, and are therefore against doing anything - especially if it costs you. Selfish much?

 

[RAM]

No. If you care about your granchildren's future then you are for an effective method of reducing carbon emissions and adverse climate change. But it does seem that if you are a hard core Lib supporter then you subscribe to Tony's mantra that it is all cough, and are therefore against doing anything - especially if it costs you. Selfish much?

Guys - please go back a few pages and look at the hard data on China's increase in emissions from coal fired power generation - the increase from that one source alone virtually outweighs the entire reductions achieved by the OECD in the same time period (since 2002).

The recently quoted statements from China about their view on the 'evidence' combined with their scheduled construction of the equivalent of Australia's entire coal fired capacity - every 8-9 months should be your focus.

You may be right and CO2 is bad. Or you may be wrong.

But what is certain is that the significant increase in China's use of coal fired power stations is emitting more particulate pollution than pretty much the entire OECD motor vehicle population. Highlights China is one of the many non-member economies with which the OECD has working relationships in addition to its member countries FYI.

Tunnel vision is never helpful and neither is acting in isolation or in a vacuum. Just look at what that's done to Q!

 

[medhead]

Again what is your point. We are talking about Australia reducing its pollution. At the moment Australia is one of the highest polluting nations per capita. The premise that Australia should do nothing implies that level of polluting per capita is acceptable. The obvious question is why do you deny China the right to just as much pollute per person? China has just as much right to move beyond an agrarian based economy and that means more demand for electricity.

The fact remains China is talking steps to limit pollution in the context of modernising their economy. China has 50-70 times the population of a Australia and comparatively they pollute less than Australia. That's is without ever assigning pollution from manufacturing in china of goods consumed in Australia.

But the simple facts remain:
We are talking about reducing Australian pollution
China is taking steps to reduce pollution
China pollutes less per capita.
China has a much large population to support.

As with a few pages ago you point about china is invalid and ignores what is really happening.

 

[james4321]

Guys - please go back a few pages and look at the hard data on China's increase in emissions from coal fired power generation - the increase from that one source alone virtually outweighs the entire reductions achieved by the OECD in the same time period (since 2002).

The recently quoted statements from China about their view on the 'evidence' combined with their scheduled construction of the equivalent of Australia's entire coal fired capacity - every 8-9 months should be your focus.

You may be right and CO2 is bad. Or you may be wrong.

But what is certain is that the significant increase in China's use of coal fired power stations is emitting more particulate pollution than pretty much the entire OECD motor vehicle population. Highlights China is one of the many non-member economies with which the OECD has working relationships in addition to its member countries FYI.

Tunnel vision is never helpful and neither is acting in isolation or in a vacuum. Just look at what that's done to Q!

Not interested in what China is or is not doing. Likewise not interested in what Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Transylvania or anywhere else in the world is or is not doing! Am interested in what my country - Australia - is doing. And the answer at present is a big fat zero. And given Abbott's position on climate change I am not holding my breath that anything useful is on the immediate horizon.

 

[JohnK]

No. If you care about your granchildren's future then you are for an effective method of reducing carbon emissions and adverse climate change. But it does seem that if you are a hard core Lib supporter then you subscribe to Tony's mantra that it is all cough, and are therefore against doing anything - especially if it costs you. Selfish much?

I am not a hard core Liberal supporter. In fact I have voted Labor early on in my life but I have been a swinging voter in a hard core Labor seat the past 20 years or so.

I don't think climate change is an issue. My grandchildren will be fine if I ever have any children.

But if you really think we have an issue with carbon emmissions then big business is your target. Not me. Sell it to them. I shouldn't have to pay to fund alternate ways big business can continue to make obscene profits. I am against further taxes that will end up being nice slush funds for other things I do not believe in.

 

[james4321]

But if you really think we have an issue with carbon emmissions then big business is your target. Not me. Sell it to them. I shouldn't have to pay to fund alternate ways big business can continue to make obscene profits. I am against further taxes that will end up being nice slush funds for other things I do not believe in.

The carbon tax was targetting big business - that was its whole point. Conversely Tony's "Direct Action " plan is a free gift to big business (to increase their 'obscene profits' as you describe them?) at the expense of the taxpayer (thats you and me).

 

[amaroo]

Received this earlier today

 

[JohnK]

The carbon tax was targetting big business - that was its whole point. Conversely Tony's "Direct Action " plan is a free gift to big business (to increase their 'obscene profits' as you describe them?) at the expense of the taxpayer (thats you and me).

It was targetted at the end user not big business.

How difficult is it to understand I do not want to fund the research into renewable sources of energy so big business can continue to make obscene profits?