The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A fair dinkum carbon tax debate will show why Tony Abbott is no idiot > Comments

A fair dinkum carbon tax debate will show why Tony Abbott is no idiot : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 28/3/2011

If carbon taxes are so effective, why has UK and EU consumption of CO2 increased despite carbon piring?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. All
Peter: Flannery is right.

However, you fail to understand (as Bolt does) the aim is to LIMIT the warming to 2 degrees C.

Pouring 1000's of millions (giga) of tonnes of a long lived GHG into the atmosphere won't help.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 28 March 2011 11:54:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Hume

"Talk of a carbon tax is offensive to the productive people who are to be parasitised to pay for this vain and corrupt religious lunacy."

I am offended by the corrupt religious lunatics who insist on
increasing the world population.

I am offended by the politicians in the democratic countries who subsidize religions to get the votes.

It is too late to stop global warming ,even if it is man made, but
to consume ALL our fossil fuels before other energy supplies are
ready is stupid.

Carbon tax will reduce consumption of carbon.
How will we power the air conditioners that we will need if we burn all the carbon fuel?.
Posted by undidly, Monday, 28 March 2011 11:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again, the perennial OLO-ers- Amicus, Leo Lane, Runner, Plantagenet and Peter Hume have demonstrated their disrespect for both OLO and its authors with their repetitious bad-mouthing of anyone with whom they disagree. Curmudgeon also bad-mouths, but seems to be trying to use verified information to support his views.

Chris Lewis has made a commendable effort to broaden the debate: will protectionism help mitigate carbon use? It is as though Chris, and other authors (including Curmudgeon) are attempting to improve our "intellectual infrastructure" through their efforts as stimulating authors. But, to the aforesaid gang, this infrastructure is just another road for them to hoon around on, or a building to graffiti or a water supply to pollute. They add no value- and worse, seem to assume that we are Alzheimers sufferers who have forgotten that they said the same unedifying stuff last week and the week before.

Of course you are entitled to your own opinions- but not to your own facts- as scarce as they are in your diatribes.

Chris, like many of us, is trying to find his way through this complex issue and has made a commendable effort to be coherent and thoughtful- and only then has used his conjecture into the unknown. He also thanks people who add to his store of knowledge.

Do you guys actually have an agenda, or is OLO a substitute for kicking your dog? Your contributions add nothing, and take much, from OLO, its authors and the Australian ethos of a "fair go".

I presently have a somewhat different point of view on these matters than Chris- but it isn't fixed. It's amenable to change and Chris's efforts may modify it.

As Keynes said: "I change my mind when the facts change- what do you do?"
Posted by Jedimaster, Monday, 28 March 2011 12:00:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jedimaster - excuse me but my comments have always been parliamentary. To call someone a "liar" is unparliamentary, but to say "these facts, which you knew, completely contradicts what you just said", is being parliamentary and within the rules of the debate (although you'd better justify it). I have never called anyone a liar on this site, incidentally, or implied it.

In your response, you commit all the sins which you are attribute to myself and others of pointless abuse. If you wish to defend the article and its author then what is your defence to the points raised? Where is your rebuttal?

In any case, I did not actually abuse the author. Instead I pointed out, with reasons, that his article cuts out the heart of the case for a carbon tax. The only two ways known to be effective in reducing emissions is to either destroy the economy, or switch the power industry to gas. (Or "recalculate" emissions by adding in an allowance for foresty use.) Norway, for example, has been trying for years to reduce emissions from a lower per capita base than us, without success.

If you can think of some example where a country has reduced its emissions through policy choices then I'm happy to hear of it - all in the spirit of robust debate, of course.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 28 March 2011 12:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear yet another Anti-science postfest on OLO. Hands up those who think having an extra 110 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect?
Hands up those who think having 0.7 ppm of ozone in the atmosphere has no effect?

The fact if if the Libs have of won the 2nd to last election then we would have a CTS, simply as that Tony is in oppersition so he can walk on the other side of the road so make sure all the grey nomands that Shock Jocks bussed in last week vote for him and not one nation.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 28 March 2011 12:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, 'another anti scientist debate'.

The only problem is scientists have been shown to be wrong in the past.

So to accept socalled 'scientific findings' as being accurate, correct and reliable, is to be naive and frankly some what dumb.

Science is merely a tool, that is used to try and explain or understand things. The accuracy of Scientific predictions haas a very high failure rate.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 28 March 2011 1:13:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy